Global Warming [Archive]

Straughn

12-09-2005, 21:28

This thread has surprisingly little flame-like posts on it ....

I've posted many, many times on this subject and have quite a bit to back up my position on it, but as is the way of posting here, the Theocracy of Straughn tends to just post the newest/most pertinent news on the subject from people who are EDUCATED in the field and whose daily lives focus on the toil and tribulation of accomplishment (in some respect) regarding that field .... so i'll stay true to form this time.
If ya want more TG me.

*ahem*

Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer within 100 years, scientists say

The current warming trends in the Arctic may shove the Arctic system into a seasonally ice-free state not seen for more than one million years, according to a new report. The melting is accelerating, and a team of researchers were unable to identify any natural processes that might slow the de-icing of the Arctic.
Such substantial additional melting of Arctic glaciers and ice sheets will raise sea level worldwide, flooding the coastal areas where many of the world's people live.
Melting sea ice has already resulted in dramatic impacts for the indigenous people and animals in the Arctic, which includes parts of Alaska, Canada, Russia, Siberia, Scandinavia and Greenland.
"What really makes the Arctic different from the rest of the non-polar world is the permanent ice in the ground, in the ocean and on land," said lead author University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan T. Overpeck. "We see all of that ice melting already, and we envision that it will melt back much more dramatically in the future as we move towards this more permanent ice-free state."
The report by Overpeck and his colleagues is published in the Aug. 23 Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union. A complete list of authors and their affiliations is at the end of this release.
The report is the result of weeklong meeting of a team of interdisciplinary scientists who examined how the Arctic environment and climate interact and how that system would respond as global temperatures rise. The workshop was organized by the NSF Arctic System Science Committee, which is chaired by Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at The University of Arizona in Tucson. The National Science Foundation funded the meeting.
The past climates in the Arctic include glacial periods, where sea ice coverage expanded and ice sheets extended into Northern America and Europe, and warmer interglacial periods during which the ice retreats, as it has during the past 10,000 years.
By studying natural data loggers such as ice cores and marine sediments, scientists have a good idea what the "natural envelope" for Arctic climate variations has been for the past million years, Overpeck said.
The team of scientists synthesized what is currently known about the Arctic and defined key components that make up the current system. The scientists identified how the components interact, including feedback loops that involve multiple parts of the system.
"In the past, researchers have tended to look at individual components of the Arctic," said Overpeck. "What we did for the first time is really look at how all of those components work together."
The team concluded that there were two major amplifying feedbacks in the Arctic system involving the interplay between sea and land ice, ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, and the amounts of precipitation and evaporation in the system.
Such feedback loops accelerate changes in the system, Overpeck said. For example, the white surface of sea ice reflects radiation from the sun. However, as sea ice melts, more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark ocean, which heats up and results in yet more sea ice melting.
While the scientists identified one feedback loop that could slow the changes, they did not see any natural mechanism that could stop the dramatic loss of ice.
"I think probably the biggest surprise of the meeting was that no one could envision any interaction between the components that would act naturally to stop the trajectory to the new system," Overpeck said. He added that the group investigated several possible braking mechanisms that had been previously suggested.
In addition to sea and land ice melting, Overpeck warned that permafrost--the permanently frozen layer of soil that underlies much of the Arctic--will melt and eventually disappear in some areas. Such thawing could release additional greenhouse gases stored in the permafrost for thousands of years, which would amplify human-induced climate change.
Overpeck said humans could step on the brakes by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. "The trouble is we don't really know where the threshold is beyond which these changes are inevitable and dangerous," Overpeck said. "Therefore it is really important that we try hard, and as soon as we can, to dramatically reduce such emissions."
Overpeck's coauthors on the Aug. 23 Eos paper are Matthew Sturm of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Fort Wainwright, Alaska; Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.; Donald K. Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.; Mark C. Serreze of the University of Colorado, Boulder; Ronald Benner of the University of South Carolina in Columbia; Eddy C. Carmack of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, BC, Canada; F. Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; S. Craig Gerlach of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Lawrence C. Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire in Durham; Larry D. Hinzman of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.; Henry P. Huntington of Huntington Consulting in Eagle River, Alaska; Jeffrey R. Key of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service in Madison, Wis.; Andrea H. Lloyd of Middlebury College in Middlebury, Va.; Glen M. MacDonald of the University of California, Los Angeles; Joe McFadden of the University of Minnesota in St. Paul; David Noone of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif.; Terry D. Prowse of the University of Victoria, in BC, Canada; Peter Schlosser of Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y.; and Charles Vˆrˆsmarty of the University of New Hampshire in Durham.
--

...and...

Study finds British soil losing carbon

MICHAEL McDONOUGH

Associated Press

LONDON - Rising temperatures resulting from climate change are likely causing soil in England and Wales to lose large amounts of carbon, possibly further contributing to the greenhouse gas effect, according to a new British study which suggests the same trend could be affecting other countries.
Soils store vast amounts of carbon - more than twice as much as in vegetation or the atmosphere. The amount of carbon in the soil is constant if the amount entering from dead vegetation - wood, leaves and roots - is equal to the amount being lost as soil microbes decompose the vegetation, releasing carbon dioxide.
But research published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature found a disturbance in this natural balance. It estimated that British soil is losing 13 million tons of carbon a year - equivalent to 8.2 percent of Britain's carbon dioxide emissions in 2004.
Many scientists believe that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap energy in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in global temperatures and changes in climate and weather patterns.
The study, funded by the British government, found that the carbon losses affected all types of soil.
"The fact that the losses appear to be happening ... irrespective of land use suggests a link to climate change," the report said, adding that over the 25-year survey period the mean temperature in England and Wales had risen by 0.5 C (0.9 F).

"Microbes in the soil are more active at warmer temperatures. As temperatures rise, the turnover of soil carbon goes up," said report co-author Guy Kirk from the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University north of London. Four of the team members came from the NSRI, and the fifth was from Rothamsted Research, a British agricultural research center.
Their study suggested that while the increased global growth in vegetation is absorbing some of the carbon dioxide released by human activity, this is being offset by the loss of carbon from the soil.
"The input side is going up because of carbon dioxide emissions, but the output is going up because of temperature rises," Kirk told The Associated Press in a phone interview.
"The rate of loss is exceeding the rate of input. Past predictions had said this would happen in 10 to 50 years' time, but this study shows it is happening much faster. It is happening already in England and Wales," he said.
In a commentary published in Nature, E. Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer of the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry questioned whether global warming was the reason.
"According to our current understanding of the sensitivity of soil respiration to warming, increased temperature alone seems to be too weak a driver," they wrote, adding that changes in rainfall may have a stronger effect on carbon-rich soils.
The British government-funded study was based on research that began 25 years ago. Scientists drew 5,662 soil samples from 6,000 sites across England and Wales between 1978 and 1983. The sites corresponded to the intersection points of a grid of 5-kilometer by 5-kilometer (3-mile by 3-mile) covering both countries. Some 340 of the sites - including urban areas and waterways - were unsuitable for taking soil samples.
About 40 percent of the sites were sampled again in later years. The resampling occurred in three phases: in 1994-95 for arable and rotational grassland sites; in 1995-96 for managed permanent grassland sites; and in 2003 for nonagricultural sites, including bogs, scrub and woodland.

The researchers said this was "the only soil inventory on such a scale anywhere in the world to have been resampled." Statistical projections showed that only 40 percent of the original sites needed to be resampled to accurately measure changes, Kirk said.
The study found that the overall annual rate of change in the upper 15 centimeters (6 inches) of soil was -0.64 percent a year, compared with the original carbon content. For types of soil containing more carbon, this rate increased, reaching a rate of -7.37 percent a year for those sites richest in carbon.
The researchers estimated that the annual loss from soil across the United Kingdom - including Scotland and Northern Ireland - was 13 million tons of carbon per year. In 2004, carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom reached 158.4 million tons, measured in carbon equivalent, according to Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Britain has set a target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. But in 2003, carbon dioxide emissions rose 2.2 percent.
---_

...
These are today's news. As i said, there's plenty more.

And as my opinion goes for this subject, if i didn't infer it enough, the people who do the work in the field are the people who should be listened to. NOT the people in the industries who stand to gain from discrediting anyone who has experience in the matter.

Straughn

12-09-2005, 21:30

I have some doubts about Global Warming. For one, weather balloons used to check temperature indicate no global warming whatsover. The only sources of data which indicate global warming are sensors within urban areas, which can be affected by urban-island heat increases. Urban areas, lined by concrete, absorb heat more readily than rural areas, and have increased temperature on a meteorological dataspread of a region.
.
Well, by golly, i guess that explains away rather nicely what i've posted. And the Australian government's declaration of warning to its populace ... as well as the permafrost melting, seeing as how that permafrost has all that urban concrete lining and all that ... plus coastal erosion ...
:rolleyes:

Vetalia

12-09-2005, 21:33

Global warming cannot be stopped unless we force China and India to enter an emissions agreement. Their emissions are simply growing faster than the reductions in other countries, so any benefits are more or less negated by their growth. Plus, it gives them an unfair economic advantage over countries that have to comply with emissions treaties. We have to force them to sign these agreements and enforce them, or else any attempt to stop GW (not GW Bush :p ) is going to fail.

Munos

12-09-2005, 21:35

Hawkintom']PROOF - ha ha ha. Yeah right. We can extrapolate a 4 billion year old system from a hundred years of measurements.

The HONEST answer is "We have no idea."

Science = the new religion. People BELIEVE what they wanna believe, and then pick whichever report (Bible, Koran, etc...) backs their beliefs and then quotes it as if it were fact.

:(

That's all you need to know, folks. Seriously.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 21:43

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.
Sure it may mean better summers for us but i dont want better sumers i want natural summers.

1. How did it get there? unknown

2. Why does it appear to shrink and expand on a cycle? Unknown

Sorry. Doesn't fly with me.

Does it exist? Its a natural phenomenom.

Straughn

12-09-2005, 21:43

That's all you need to know, folks. Seriously.
Sounds like an ID mindset, that screams,
"It's too complicated for my confused mind to understand, predict, or appreciate for its mechanical nature, therefore some greater power did it and that's as much as i need to know, f*ckallwherewithal."
Hope that ain't what yer shootin' for.

Munos

12-09-2005, 21:48

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 21:48

Global warming (or climate change if you prefer) exists. Almost noone seriously disputes this.

What is debated is if humans have anything to do with it or if it is a natural pattern, as in recurring iceages. Both sides have strong arguments - and I honestly do not know.

However, it is quite obvious that it is *bad* for humanity. So if we are not having an impact on it now, we should change that asap. In the right direction of course ;)

Actually, we've had warming trends before but we survived them too. It won't be long till we begin to see global cooling reassert itself.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 21:50

Hawkintom']PROOF - ha ha ha. Yeah right. We can extrapolate a 4 billion year old system from a hundred years of measurements.

The HONEST answer is "We have no idea."

You are indeed correct Hawkintom. We don't have any idea. Tree core samples have shown warming and cooling trends through out history.

Science = the new religion. People BELIEVE what they wanna believe, and then pick whichever report (Bible, Koran, etc...) backs their beliefs and then quotes it as if it were fact.

:(

Sad but true Hawkintom.

Straughn

12-09-2005, 21:55

Sounds like you pinpointed it.
Good thing, too. I tend to lose track too quickly when the "whateverists" start going off on how no one knows anything, et cetera.
;)

Straughn

12-09-2005, 21:56

You are indeed correct Hawkintom. We don't have any idea. Tree core samples have shown warming and cooling trends through out history.

Sad but true Hawkintom.
DuhduhduhDUH ....
He's your hate when you want love?
He's ... you?
;)
Tsk, Corny. :rolleyes:

SEO Kingdom

12-09-2005, 22:01

I believe we have already had a topic that ended up about this, but ill re post what I said then anyway.

Global Warming Exists, but it's not caused by man, it's all natural.

It's what lead to the previous Ice Ages and it's going to happen again. I'd try and explain it, but I really can't be bothered to right now ;) . Maybe later

Brenchley

12-09-2005, 22:05

I've seen lots of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Communism vs. Capitalism, Atheism vs Religion etc threads recently. I would be interested to see a Global Warming thread, with scientific debate.

Does it exist? If so why (proof) and how will it impact all of us? If no, then why not (proof)?

I don't know much, so I'm just starting this, gonna sit back and hopefully enjoy... :)

Yes, it does exist, of that there can be no doubt.

Yes, it will impact us all, mostly because of the vast movement of people involved - imagine the equivalent of the New Orleans displacement every single day - for as long as 25 to 50 years.

Now. If you ask the question "what caused it?" that would result in a VERY long debate.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 22:17

L-rouge

12-09-2005, 22:24

Does global warming exist. Yes.
Does it occur naturally. Yes.
Is it effected in any way by the increased release of carbon emissions through the industrialisation of the modern world. Most likely, yes.

Global warming is a phenomena that has effected the Earth since it began its existence. Animal, and plant life also effect how this cyclical change occurs. The difference now, that hasn't occured in the past, is that humans are effecting changes on the planet in ways that, in the natural order of things, wouldn't have occurred.
Now before the old argument of "an eruption from a volcano would release more gases into the air than is currently released annually in industrial production", think of the things we release that otherwise wouldn't be released.
Burning trees, would occur naturally through forest fires. Ok, but burning fossil fuels wouldn't. We release those products from underground, often mining miles below the surface of the planet in order to reach those resources. Those sources of carbon would not be released without us.

The damage we inflict on the planet effects global temperatures, in the same way that natural events occuring on the planet effect global temperatures. Just because we are coming out of an ice-age and the world is heating up naturally, is there any reason for us to try and accelerate that change?
If there is only one thing we should have learned from natural history it is that animals can't cope with large changes to their natural environment, and I'm not talking about building a town or city (though some animals are unable to cope) I'm talking about changes in air quality, temperature et al. We ourselves are only animals and all changes we make effect us. Increasing the temperature of the planet, especially to quickly, could have disasterous effects for ourselves and everything else.
As someone else said, we're trying to extrapolate a 4 billion year old system from one hundred years of measurement, and if we've already detected changes, what more could be happening that we don't know about...?

Munos

12-09-2005, 22:26

Well said SEO Kingdom. Well said indeed. You are indeed correct but the leftists and enviromentalists on here wont believe a word you said.

There's leftist and environmentalists on here? Where? I don't believe you.

Liskeinland

12-09-2005, 22:29

Well said SEO Kingdom. Well said indeed. You are indeed correct but the leftists and enviromentalists on here wont believe a word you said. It's most likely at least half natural, but even if it is totally natural, it's bad for mankind and the planet for the next ages… so shouldn't we be doing something? Man could survive another ice age, but not warming so easily. Unless you want to see New York flooded. Or Cornwall again.

Cephali Psitticae

12-09-2005, 22:32

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 22:34

It's most likely at least half natural, but even if it is totally natural, it's bad for mankind and the planet for the next ages… so shouldn't we be doing something? Man could survive another ice age, but not warming so easily. Unless you want to see New York flooded. Or Cornwall again.

Man went through massive warming periods as well as cooling periods and has survived both of them.

You cannot stop climate change. It happens on a cycle. How many years that cycle is, I couldn't tell you because I don't know that answer. You cannot stop something that is natural.

Utracia

12-09-2005, 22:34

It's what lead to the previous Ice Ages and it's going to happen again. I'd try and explain it, but I really can't be bothered to right now ;) . Maybe later

My geology prof said that we are overdue for another Ice Age. So maybe we'll all freeze to death instead of anything else. ;)

Versluys

12-09-2005, 22:37

It is a scientific fact that all ice ages took place after a period in which the temperature increased (global warming). Fact also is we are overdue for our ice age. We're simply seeing the early warning signs of an Ice age en route. Of course, most of us, if not all of us, won't be around to see the start of this ice age. If indeed global warming is caused by nature and not by us there is little we can do to reverse the process, as it is destined to happen anyway.

Taverham high

12-09-2005, 22:40

The Noble Men

12-09-2005, 22:49

I belive that global warming is natural, yet humanity isn't helping matters.

Bunnyducks

12-09-2005, 22:52

I belive that global warming is natural, yet humanity isn't helping matters.
How very well said.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 22:52

Vegas-Rex

12-09-2005, 22:56

corneliu, look at this graph then tell me that western (and recently global) industrialisation have nothing to do with global warming. look at the rate of temperature increase. look when this rate increased dramatically. post 1800. what happened around the 1800s? industrialisation. i find it scarey you will not accept even some of what has been said here. i know that the world was warming anyway after the last ice age, but the rate of increase post industrialisation tells its own story. its unnatural.

http://www.whyenergymatters.org/images/layout/graph_global.gif

A possible response (not what I think): You could be mixing cause and effect. Perhaps industry only arose in situations where global temperature allowed it to.

What I think: Even if the evidence seems inconclusive, Global Warming is like Evolution: for either one to not have happened much of what we know about science would have to be wrong. Creatures will evolve over time, and there's no way to stop them. Industry on the scale we're doing it will raise the global temperature, whether or not the evidence indicates it has done so yet. For it not to almost everything we know about how the world works would have to be wrong.

The Noble Men

12-09-2005, 22:57

How very well said.

Thanks. :)

Aryavartha

12-09-2005, 22:58

Copiosa Scotia

12-09-2005, 22:59

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.

The hole in the ozone layer is a completely separate phenomenon from global warming. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons, while global warming is (purportedly) caused by greenhouse gases.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 23:00

A possible response (not what I think): You could be mixing cause and effect. Perhaps industry only arose in situations where global temperature allowed it to.

What I think: Even if the evidence seems inconclusive, Global Warming is like Evolution: for either one to not have happened much of what we know about science would have to be wrong. Creatures will evolve over time, and there's no way to stop them. Industry on the scale we're doing it will raise the global temperature, whether or not the evidence indicates it has done so yet. For it not to almost everything we know about how the world works would have to be wrong.

You have a point, however we still don't know how the world works. If we did, weather predictions would be 100% accurate and they're not. (yes it is only an example)

We are only now uncracking the atmosphere and have been studying atmospheric temps since the advent of satellites. We just don't know enough right now to really see the effects that we are having.

Until then, I'll maintain the position it is a natural phenomenom since it really is a natural phenomenon. I'll wait to see more research done before I say that we're having an effect on it.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 23:01

The hole in the ozone layer is a completely separate phenomenon from global warming. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorofluorocarbons, while global warming is (purportedly) caused by greenhouse gases.

That's only one theory but why does it shrink and expand?

Ruloah

12-09-2005, 23:02

1. How did it get there? unknown

2. Why does it appear to shrink and expand on a cycle? Unknown

Sorry. Doesn't fly with me.

Does it exist? Its a natural phenomenom.

Ozone hole over Antarctica expands and shrinks according to the amount of sunlight (winter vs summer) hitting the atmosphere---ozone is just O3 instead of O2; O2+sunlight=O3. So when less sunlight (winter), less ozone. Simple, natural. Plus how long ago did we ban CFCs? And what effect did we (humans) have on that hole?

How to stop global warming: turn down the solar radiation (I think Bush has the switch controlling the sun). Simple, not too easy... ;)

All thoughts that humans can affect the weather of the entire planet in such a drastic fashion are pure arrogance. We must be gods!

Taverham high

12-09-2005, 23:02

By looking at your graph, I can make an arguement that we were coming out of a mini ice age.

Sorry no can do buddy.

It is a natural event since it has been going on for eons.

*please* look!

i doubt you can find a graph that shows that rate of temperature increase, from pre industrialisation. that rate of increase has not been going on for eons, its a sudden change. i wish you could acknowledge some of my argument, as your side of the debate has a point when it says its natural, it obviously is, but this rate of increase is not a natural increase, and therefore has to be linked to some change in the world. this change has to be industrialisation.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 23:04

Ozone hole over Antarctica expands and shrinks according to the amount of sunlight (winter vs summer) hitting the atmosphere---ozone is just O3 instead of O2; O2+sunlight=O3. So when less sunlight (winter), less ozone. Simple, natural. Plus how long ago did we ban CFCs?

Your right. It is natural. That is why it is still there and shrinks and expands. Thank you!

How to stop global warming: turn down the solar radiation (I think Bush has the switch controlling the sun). Simple, not too easy... ;)

LOL!

Copiosa Scotia

12-09-2005, 23:09

That's only one theory but why does it shrink and expand?

Good question, and I don't know the answer to it. CFCs do break down ozone molecules -- that's well-established chemistry -- and are therefore able to cause ozone depletion, but it's certainly possible that the ozone hole over Antarctica exists due to some other cause.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 23:11

Good question, and I don't know the answer to it. CFCs do break down ozone molecules -- that's well-established chemistry -- and are therefore able to cause ozone depletion, but it's certainly possible that the ozone hole over Antarctica exists due to some other cause.

Here's an even better question for you. Why isn't there a hole over the northern hemisphere? After all, it is a known fact that the North has more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere.

SEO Kingdom

12-09-2005, 23:15

My geology prof said that we are overdue for another Ice Age. So maybe we'll all freeze to death instead of anything else. ;)

ok I have to now

Basically, Global Warming is what causes the Ice Age (makes sense huh?)

The Earths Nature causes a hole in the Ozone Layer. Due to this more heat gets in which causes the ice caps to melt which causes flooding.

This then messes up several weather drifts (such as the North Atlantic Drift). Now, the Earth has to sort itself out, or it will be out of balance. Don't ask me why it has to happen, it just does ok.

Now, to get rid of the extra heat, the Earths Ice Caps naturally expand, causing an ice coverage of most of the Northern Hemispehere (and some of the southern).

This happens, and there is a lot of ice everywhere, but wait, now the Earth is out of balance again. So, to put it back in balance, a natural warming trend begins causing the ice caps to start melting. Which then eventually leads to another hole being created in the ozone layer, which melts it some more, which puts the Earths Climate out of balance, blah, blah, blah.

And that is todays Geography lesson.

Ruloah

12-09-2005, 23:18

More stuff on global warming and ice ages

interglacial periods (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html) :eek:

I remember back in the 1970's when scientists were concerned about
GLOBAL COOLING! That's right, we had to something because we were about to enter a new ice age. But then the 1980's hit and we changed to Global Warming instead...

When will we admit that we just don't know.

Corneliu

12-09-2005, 23:21

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

12-09-2005, 23:22

I'm going to go with "Environmetalism=Tribal Religion." It may be useful to note that I didn't say "Science=Religion", this is because Environmentalism, in the realm of Global Warming, etc. isn't science. It is taking something scientifically true (There is a hole in the ozone layer, earth is getting warmer) and then attaching to it human signifigance. In the same way, Environmentalism is like tribal religions in that they both take natural phenomenon that happen a set way, and the attribute human control to them.

The Noble Men

12-09-2005, 23:27

I remember back in the 1970's when scientists were concerned about GLOBAL COOLING! That's right, we had to something because we were about to enter a new ice age. But then the 1980's hit and we changed to Global Warming instead...

Yeah, my old-man has regaled me with tales about the scare. Science changes it's fashions quicker than Vogue.

When will we admit that we just don't know.

They always admit to me they don't know the answer when I ask them "what goes up the hill with 3 legs and goes down the hill with 4"? Even I don't know the answer.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

12-09-2005, 23:32

They always admit to me they don't know the answer when I ask them "what goes up the hill with 3 legs and goes down the hill with 4"? Even I don't know the answer.
The answer is a serial killer who collects one leg from each of his victims. When he goes up the hill, he has already killed once that night (and thus has his 2 legs, and one victim's leg) and when he travels back down the hill he has killed the old man standing at the top and is now bringing 2 victim's legs and his own 2 legs.

Avarhierrim

12-09-2005, 23:34

They always admit to me they don't know the answer when I ask them "what goes up the hill with 3 legs and goes down the hill with 4"? Even I don't know the answer.

a three legged dog goes up the hill and comes down with a posthetic(?) leg?

Crowsfeet

12-09-2005, 23:38

corneliu, look at this graph then tell me that western (and recently global) industrialisation have nothing to do with global warming. look at the rate of temperature increase. look when this rate increased dramatically. post 1800. what happened around the 1800s? industrialisation. i find it scarey you will not accept even some of what has been said here. i know that the world was warming anyway after the last ice age, but the rate of increase post industrialisation tells its own story. its unnatural.

http://www.whyenergymatters.org/images/layout/graph_global.gif

That graph looks very suspect.

1) the temp reconstruction line continues and is lower than the actual recorded temperature line.
2) The distance between CO2 and reconstructed temp is pretty constant (.2 degrees) with the reconstructed temp being well above (.2 degrees above); then CO2 increases sharply and overlaps measured temperatures. Wouldn't measured temperature, logically, remain around the same distance ABOVE the CO2 line thereby making the temperatures measured well below what it actually should be? Say around .8, if that .2 constant distance were added.

P.S. The sun has been getting more hot.

The Noble Men

12-09-2005, 23:38

Hey, I gotta go. Bye. Had fun chatting.

HowTheDeadLive

12-09-2005, 23:46

All the so called experts here who dismiss global warming, using bad science and worse politics, look at this:-

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

An entire page of links from the New Scientist. Which, i believe, is one of the most reputed scientific journals in the world.

They seem convinced. And convincing.

"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down."

Laerod

12-09-2005, 23:54

I've seen lots of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Communism vs. Capitalism, Atheism vs Religion etc threads recently. I would be interested to see a Global Warming thread, with scientific debate.

Does it exist? If so why (proof) and how will it impact all of us? If no, then why not (proof)?

I don't know much, so I'm just starting this, gonna sit back and hopefully enjoy... :)Right. Facts on the table: Global warming exists.
Everyone except a few incorrigibles agree on this. That's mainly because there's enough evidence to point out that yes, the world is warmer than fifty years ago.
The true controversy is between the issues whether it is natural or whether human activity influences it.

Now, to add to the debate, all G8 members as well as China and India have agreed on the Gleneagles summit that it is influenced by human behavior and that it can affect everyone everywhere.

Desperate Measures

12-09-2005, 23:54

That graph looks very suspect.

1) the temp reconstruction line continues and is lower than the actual recorded temperature line.
2) The distance between CO2 and reconstructed temp is pretty constant (.2 degrees) with the reconstructed temp being well above (.2 degrees above); then CO2 increases sharply and overlaps measured temperatures. Wouldn't measured temperature, logically, remain around the same distance ABOVE the CO2 line thereby making the temperatures measured well below what it actually should be? Say around .8, if that .2 constant distance were added.

P.S. The sun has been getting more hot.
This graph should be much more convincing and with a much more plausible explanation. I know the truth about global warming.
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

Desperate Measures

12-09-2005, 23:56

Here's an even better question for you. Why isn't there a hole over the northern hemisphere? After all, it is a known fact that the North has more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere.
Just guessing but it may be the same idea of a city being less polluted than a suburb.

Vetalia

12-09-2005, 23:57

lol.
US is the highest polluter in the world, both by absolute numbers and per capita.

The US makes up 20% of emissions and emission growth is flat. Asia makes up 18% and its rate is increasing by 10% per year. There's a problem there, and nothing can be done about global warming until we control Asian emissions.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:06

Here's an even better question for you. Why isn't there a hole over the northern hemisphere? After all, it is a known fact that the North has more CFCs than the Southern Hemisphere.
Google sez: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00165.htm

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 00:10

Just guessing but it may be the same idea of a city being less polluted than a suburb.

Why is there a hole in the ozone layer in the South but not in the north? I'm sorry.

Also, why does the hole that is there keep expanding AND SHRINKING?

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 00:11

Why is there a hole in the ozone layer in the South but not in the north? I'm sorry.

Also, why does the hole that is there keep expanding AND SHRINKING?

I think he just answered this one, with a quick search on google...

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:11

Why is there a hole in the ozone layer in the South but not in the north? I'm sorry.

Also, why does the hole that is there keep expanding AND SHRINKING?
I'm not a scientist. The link I provided explains it better than I could.

Laerod

13-09-2005, 00:12

Also, why does the hole that is there keep expanding AND SHRINKING?Source please...

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 00:15

I think he just answered this one, with a quick search on google...

Actually he didn't.

I'm waiting on an explaination on why it is there and why it constantly expands and shrinks.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:18

Actually he didn't.

I'm waiting on an explaination on why it is there and why it constantly expands and shrinks.
You're at a computer, right? You know how to use google?
Basically its a seasonal thing. Again, I'm reading about these questions myself so instead of me getting it wrong, lets read the link together.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=45638

Neo-Anarchists

13-09-2005, 00:19

Actually he didn't.
Hmm? (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9628952&postcount=61)
I'm waiting on an explaination on why it is there and why it constantly expands and shrinks.
Well, before anyone can explain it, perhaps we could have a link to an actual description of the phenomenon so that we know what we are debating?

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 00:22

Source please...

Look it up. It is a known fact that depending on the season, it expands and it shrinks.

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 00:22

Actually he didn't.

I'm waiting on an explaination on why it is there and why it constantly expands and shrinks.

I just read the link he posted, and it answered the first half, and you haven't provided a source for the second half.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:23

Hmm? (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9628952&postcount=61)

Well, before anyone can explain it, perhaps we could have a link to an actual description of the phenomenon so that we know what we are debating?
I work... I work til my finger tips are bloody... damn you nationstates...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
It's covered in part 2. I think. Just glanced it over really.

Laerod

13-09-2005, 00:25

Look it up. It is a known fact that depending on the season, it expands and it shrinks.Obviously not. And my studies revolve around the environment. And why should we answer your questions if you could "look them up" yourself?

Please provide a source for your statement.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:26

I just read the link he posted, and it answered the first half, and you haven't provided a source for the second half.
The ozone layer does shrink. I sort of understood why from the links I've put up and read through. I don't get it enough to paraphrase yet.

Bunnyducks

13-09-2005, 00:26

Look it up. He who asks for links...

But why the ozone hole is in the southern hemisphere, when north is polluting..?

Easy, shit goes down. There's a scientific answer for you. No, no need to thank me.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 00:26

I'm waiting on an explaination on why it is there and why it constantly expands and shrinks.

and im waiting for you to disprove my argument about the unnatural rate of temperature increase.

crowsfeet= yes the graph could have been better/clearer, but it was the first one i found. apologies.

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 00:27

I work... I work til my finger tips are bloody... damn you nationstates...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
It's covered in part 2. I think. Just glanced it over really.

i think you don't even need to get to part 2, to be honest. In the opening paragraphs:-

"Ozone depletion varies geographically and by season. The term ozone hole refers to the annual, temporary reductions in the polar regions, where large losses in ozone occur each spring (up to 70% over 25 million km2 of Antarctica and 30% over the Arctic) followed by recovery in the summer. This reduction is caused by an increase in concentrations of stratospheric chlorine from breakdown of human manufactured CFC emissions, as well as other gases."

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 00:32

Obviously not. And my studies revolve around the environment. And why should we answer your questions if you could "look them up" yourself?

Please provide a source for your statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html?oneclick=true
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_5_59/ai_99601622

This will have to do for now.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:33

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html?oneclick=true
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_5_59/ai_99601622

This will have to do for now.
Have you read the answer to your question?

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 00:35

Have you read the answer to your question?

We can blame cfcs all we want but does that actualy make it accurate? How do we know that the hole hasn't been there from the start of creation?

Note: These are hypothetical to stir debate!

Bunnyducks

13-09-2005, 00:38

Dassenko

13-09-2005, 00:40

Please. The continual conflation of ozone layer degradation and global warming in this discussion makes my eyes water.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 00:48

We can blame cfcs all we want but does that actualy make it accurate? How do we know that the hole hasn't been there from the start of creation?

Note: These are hypothetical to stir debate!
For all we know, the hole has been there forever, expanding and shrinking. But its always been sustainable. Its the size of the hole when it expands and the size it shrinks down to which is become alarming. That's what I gathered. Does that sound right to anyone else?

Myrmidonisia

13-09-2005, 00:57

I read this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910/ap_on_sc/mexico_ozone_layer;_ylt=AiuyNwbNliyuFM8k8DMYcxVvieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) the other day about ozone and CFCs:

Scientists have linked the use of CFCs to destruction of the ozone layer.

[cut]

Mexico is one of 189 nations, including the United States, that signed the Montreal Protocol, a 1987 agreement that aims to phase out the use and production of CFCs by 2010.

What I get from this is that CFCs are a real cause of ozone depletion. I can say this because I understand the chemistry involved. I'd like to have someone explain how excess CO2 can deplete ozone.

Second, most of the world has signed the treaty and is working toward a common goal. I know that's true because I had to take an exam so I could buy freon and charge my car's air conditioning system after I fixed the leak.

Aggretia

13-09-2005, 01:10

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.
Sure it may mean better summers for us but i dont want better sumers i want natural summers.

You do realize that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming don't you?

Kyoto scientists predicted that if kyoto were enacted, average global temperatures would only be something like .2 degrees celsius less than if it wasn't enacted.

I don't think .2 degrees is enough to justify the crippling of the U.S., Russian, and other economies.

Besides, global warming might be bad for the environment, but it isn't necessarily bad for the environment, after all, there is so much land in siberia and northern canada that can't be used now, but if the global climate becomes warmer more land might be useable. The tropics might be screwed, but for the rest of us it very well may be beneficial. Regardless of what happens we will cope, after all, we're humans.

Billy Pride

13-09-2005, 01:10

Let’s lay a few cards on the table,

It HAS been happening for millennia, and although temperatures may seem to spike in the last two hundred years, the pirate graph shows that a correlation with CO2 is no proof of causality, in fact temperatures over the last century correlate better with sun-spot cycles than with CO2 levels. Current climate models are still far too simplistic to get meaningful local trends to even predict accurately something as big as the Gulf Stream for example. I’ll even agree that there are positivist scientists who are rather unable to recognise their subjectivity or the contingency of their observations.

BUT!

As Lorenz demonstrated decades ago, even the slightest change in parameters can propagate into a seemingly disproportionate change in future projections (butterfly effect). You may say that it’s arrogant to assume humankind can cause such a change to the Earth’s climate, but the truth is that even one solitary volcanic eruption 10,000 years ago, or even a caveman’s fire COULD have changed the history of the climate considerably. In my opinion, if such a small input can make a difference, industrialisation and deforestation is gonna HAVE THE POTENTIAL to make a considerable difference.

As for the “we’ve survived warm spells before” argument: you can survive as many fluctuations as you want – you only have to go extinct once. In fact, every species that became extinct in the last ten thousand years survived the last ice age, yet some pressure has forced it to extinction, it’s not simply a question of physically withstanding the temperature, it’s the food that will perish, the low-lying land that will be lost. I’d imagine that a society as Machiavellian as the USA will always have survivors, but at what cost to those less fortunate, and the general health of our environment in general?

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 01:16

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 01:33

I read this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910/ap_on_sc/mexico_ozone_layer;_ylt=AiuyNwbNliyuFM8k8DMYcxVvieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) the other day about ozone and CFCs:

What I get from this is that CFCs are a real cause of ozone depletion. I can say this because I understand the chemistry involved. I'd like to have someone explain how excess CO2 can deplete ozone.

Second, most of the world has signed the treaty and is working toward a common goal. I know that's true because I had to take an exam so I could buy freon and charge my car's air conditioning system after I fixed the leak.
"Carbon dioxide is the main culprit.

The single human activity that is most likely to have a large impact on the climate is the burning of "fossil fuels" such as coal, oil and gas. These fuels contain carbon. Burning them makes carbon dioxide gas. Since the early 1800s, when people began burning large amounts of coal and oil, the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has increased by nearly 30%, and average global temperature appears to have risen between 1° and 2°F.

Carbon dioxide gas traps solar heat in the atmosphere, partly in the same way as glass traps solar heat in a sunroom or a greenhouse. For this reason, carbon dioxide is sometimes called a "greenhouse gas." As more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, solar heat has more trouble getting out. The result is that, if everything else stayed unchanged, the average temperature of the atmosphere would increase.

As people burn more fossil fuel for energy they add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If this goes on long enough, the average temperature of the atmosphere will almost certainly rise. You can learn more about how this works, and uncertainties in scientific understanding, from Details Booklet Part 1.

If global warming occurs, not every day or every place will be warmer. But on average most places will be warmer. This will cause changes in the amount and pattern of rain and snow, in the length of growing seasons, in the frequency and severity of storms, and in sea level. Farms, forests, and plants and animals in the natural environment, will all be affected. "
The ozone hole is a different problem.

"Many people confuse the hole in the ozone layer with climate change. However, these two problems are not closely related. The ozone layer protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet light that can cause skin cancer and damage plants and animals. The main cause of the hole in the ozone layer is chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), gases that are used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and industrial applications.
While CFCs alone cause warming, their ozone destruction can cause cooling. So far these warming and cooling influences have approximately balanced. Prior to 1978 CFCs were used as a propellant in aerosol spray cans, but that use has ended in the U.S. Under an international agreement most uses of CFCs are now being phased out to protect the ozone layer. "
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/part1.html

[NS]Hawkintom

13-09-2005, 02:33

Sounds like an ID mindset, that screams,
"It's too complicated for my confused mind to understand, predict, or appreciate for its mechanical nature, therefore some greater power did it and that's as much as i need to know, f*ckallwherewithal."
Hope that ain't what yer shootin' for.

No, it's too complicated for YOUR mind to understand. So you choose to pretend that it is caused by something you can control, rather than accept that there are things we cannot control.

You stated several articles that appeared to support your side of the global warming argument, and not (as I said) you stand on those "Bibles" and state that you are right.

Now consider this:

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

I can do more if you like, but to sum it up, there are plenty of scientific studies that show that solar activity has far more to do with the temperature of our planet than human activity.

Now, (as I said) we both begin to get out our scientific studies (Bibles) and declare that our study is better than the other guy's study.

Your ball...

[NS]Hawkintom

13-09-2005, 02:47

It really burns me up when people claim science is just a set of beliefs like religion :mad: Science is based on TESTED hypotheses. When has a religious dogma ever been objectively tested? I am not anti- religion; religion is a source of comfort and moral guidance to billions. Religion is NOT a substitute for careful, disciplined, peer-reviewed scientific investigation. Science is the best problem solving method ever devised (thank you Gallileo) :fluffle: It is not based on faith. Rather, it is grudgingly agreed upon by skeptics.

Not the kind of "science" we are talking about here - which is more like politics.

Now that I've vented, most of the scientific community agrees that global warming is in fact happening and that the rate of global warming is correlated with increased CO2 emmisions.

Now that you've vented, let me point out that you are wrong.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p419.htm

Kyoto Accord Protest Quickening

Washington Times, April 22, 1998

by S. Fred Singer
Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

Also:

http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/Item09.htm

Four years after the "Earth Summit" in Rio, a UN-sponsored scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is warning that the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming "must now be taken seriously." This remarkable statement was released at a London press conference, held to usher in the latest IPCC report, "Climate Change 1995." In 1992, the world's statesmen, including George Bush, were induced to sign the Global Climate Treaty. The data have not changed since 1992 and the present scientific evidence is still insufficient to take global warming seriously. The fact is that IPCC predictions of global warming have been based on nothing more than imperfect theoretical climate models never validated by observations.

The IPCC's numbers change constantly, depending on the audience. For example, at the press conference, Sir John Houghton, co-chairman of IPCC, reportedly claimed that "an increase of global temperature of between 1.5 C and 4.0 C, [is] expected by the year 2100." The 1995 report itself claims an increase of 1 C to 3.5 C-- while a July 1995 US government report gave a lowest value of only 0.5 C, one-third of Houghton's value. These substantial discrepancies are nowhere explained. (A temperature rise of half a degree over a century, comparable to natural changes, would barely be detectable and would certainly be inconsequential.)

[b]Even worse, the IPCC has managed to suppress relevant data showing that no warming is taking place. For nearly 20, earth satellites have been providing accurate and truly global temperature data. These data show no increase whatsoever -- contrary to all of the predictions of theoretical climate models.[b] Yet if one examines the 1995 Summary for Policymakers, one finds absolutely no mention of satellite data--or even of the existence of satellites. The "Technical Summary" (of the IPCC Working Group I Report) grudgingly allocates three lines to satellite data and manages to misrepresent an observed cooling as a warming.

And:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50

More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth

It was Dr. Seitz' essay in the Wall Street Journal (A Major Deception on "Global Warming", June 12, 1996), http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/majordeception.htm which first drew public attention to the textual "cleansing" of the UN scientific report that forms the basis for the Kyoto Accord. For details on the unannounced text changes and how they affected the sense of the IPCC report, click here.

The full text of the Petition follows.

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The current list of signers, which is still growing rapidly, is available on http://zwr.oism.org/pproject

Bunnyducks

13-09-2005, 02:59

Now, Hawkintom is Corneliu, right? :)
(just say it is so)

[NS]Hawkintom

13-09-2005, 03:03

*please* look!

i doubt you can find a graph that shows that rate of temperature increase, from pre industrialisation. that rate of increase has not been going on for eons, its a sudden change. i wish you could acknowledge some of my argument, as your side of the debate has a point when it says its natural, it obviously is, but this rate of increase is not a natural increase, and therefore has to be linked to some change in the world. this change has to be industrialisation.

Please look at this:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig11.gif

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig3.gif

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 04:54

Now, Hawkintom is Corneliu, right? :)
(just say it is so)

Actually, no. Even I am not that quick on the draw and I was at work since 8 pm ET

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 07:58

Hawkintom']Not the kind of "science" we are talking about here - which is more like politics.

Now that you've vented, let me point out that you are wrong.

Also:

And:

It would be interesting to see how many of those "15,000 signees" have academic degrees related to this discussion. You know, as in "they know what they are talking about, rather than having a degree in engineering"

Just so we knew, you know?

The Squeaky Rat

13-09-2005, 08:24

You do realize that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming don't you?

Actually, it is clear from some posts in this topic that many people don't.

So:
- The ozone layer in the atmosphere stops bad skincancer causing rays from the sun from reaching earths surface. At some places this layer has become so thin we speak of "holes in the ozone layer". It is assumed that these holes were caused by the emissions of so called CFC's, which used to be employed in spraycans and refrigirators.

- global warming changes temperatures and climates around the globe. This is assumed to be caused by an increase of the "greenhouse effect" - our atmosphere bounces some of the warmth the earth is radiating into the universe back to the surface, increasing global temperature. CO2 is an important contributor to this effect, which is why many scientists believe humanities industry is adding to it.
Others however believe that global climate changes are a natural occurence, and that our impact on it is neglible. They however seldom argue the existence of said changes.
Do note that global warming doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere - it means there is more "warmth" in total. Some areas might get colder.

Ethariador

13-09-2005, 08:52

Actually, it is clear from some posts in this topic that many people don't.

So:
- The ozone layer in the atmosphere stops bad skincancer causing rays from the sun from reaching earths surface. At some places this layer has become so thin we speak of "holes in the ozone layer". It is assumed that these holes were caused by the emissions of so called CFC's, which used to be employed in spraycans and refrigirators.
. . .

So, this is how the Ozone layer works. O3 (Ozone) forms naturally, and, in fact, is quite poisonous. But, it's lighter than the gases at the surface of the earth, so no one cares. Incident radiation breaks O3 into a stable O2 molecule and a free Oxygen molecule. Given enough time and heat, the molecule and free atom will reform O3, given there's nothing in the way of this process happening, such as a free Chlorine atom (from ChloroFlouroCarbons that have broken down) that made its way up to this layer and formed a bond faster with the free Oxygen than the O2 molecule. In short, the Ozone layer just absorbs radiation including, but not limited to, Ultraviolet radiation, which has been indicated as a source that may cause skin cancer over prolonged exposure. Temperature-wise, it's making about as much difference as standing behind a chain-link fence.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 09:24

Hawkintom']Please look at this:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig11.gif

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig3.gif

if you could please look at this...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://www.savetheworld.biz/global%20warming%20graph.jpg

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/Images/temperature_vs_co2_rt.gif

the vast majority of the worlds scientists are in consensus over this.

p.s. the sun expanding theory is not one im clued up with, but it *may* be slightly true, but i very much doubt it. its far more likely that... carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas-> industrialisation produces carbon dioxide-> the world is heavily industrialised-> the world gets hotter. to ignore this now is going to cause vast problems for people living in coastal and climatically fragile areas. this includes me. i do my bit, i dont drive, i cycle, i try to buy locally produced food, i leave no electrical appliances on standby, i campaign for more windfarms, etc etc.

Uberowl

13-09-2005, 12:11

Wow this is some great stuff keep it up. I knew there would be a debate over this. I've got plenty more topics up my sleeves :p

Harlesburg

13-09-2005, 12:15

The Ozone hole has stopped growing as of last friday.

Dassenko

13-09-2005, 13:04

Kyoto scientists predicted that if kyoto were enacted, average global temperatures would only be something like .2 degrees celsius less than if it wasn't enacted.

I don't think .2 degrees is enough to justify the crippling of the U.S., Russian, and other economies.
And here is the fallacy: that Kyoto (or indeed any environmental agreement) will cripple economies. Kyoto is an enormous business opportunity. US businesses are suffering from missed opportunities thanks to the intransigence of the US government.

Whoopsie!

Dassenko

13-09-2005, 13:07

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p419.htm

Kyoto Accord Protest Quickening

Washington Times, April 22, 1998

by S. Fred Singer
Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
Hilarious. The '15,000' included Geri Haliwell and several cartoon characters, I elieve.

Harlesburg

13-09-2005, 13:10

Was this a joke? :confused:

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 13:12

And here is the fallacy: that Kyoto (or indeed any environmental agreement) will cripple economies. Kyoto is an enormous business opportunity. US businesses are suffering from missed opportunities thanks to the intransigence of the US government.

Whoopsie!

Whoopsie,

I dont want my country to lose 4 million jobs. Also, Kyoto wasn't going to do anything at all. It would've had very little if any impact on the environment and global warming (even though we aren't causing it)

Point in fact: Why is China and India and other developing nations excluded from following kyoto? They have just as much to gain (if we follow your theory) if they come into compliance. They are getting a free pass.

So much for that hot idea.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 13:26

...global warming (even though we aren't causing it)

you scare me. look at the graphs i have posted. it seems to me that you are pooh-poohing all obvious explanations for the rapid temperature rise just because you think it will have repercussions on your economy. soon enough all your major coastal cities will be flooded, thats going to have an effect on your economy too dont you think? as well as peoples lives. central london will be gone, most of the county i live in will be underwater. and this is the effect on rich people like you and me. what will the worlds poor do?

Landmarkistan

13-09-2005, 13:31

global warming notes...
1. smog sucks, but st. helens errupted more greenhouse gases in the first hour than humans had in their entire stay here on the earth... and then continued. this doesn't mean we should keep it up, it just puts things in perspective.

2. i hear a lot about the 10 degree celcius watershed, as in as soon as we raise the average temp 10C it will become irreversible. the actual answer is 4C because that is the temperature required for the ambient ocean temperature around the equator to no longer keep the mass amount of CO2 it holds at a layer 10 feet under (and hence, 4C cooler on average) from being released into the air... when that happens, that will bump us up to 10C in a short span of years.

3. we're not runing the world, the world's been in a state of flux forever, wandering between hot & cold points, we're just a variable... of course variables can be eliminated.

4. the hole in the ozone actually lets heat out and is helping... odd as that seems. look it up. :) ...of course the skin cancer sucks.

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 13:42

*snip*

What are you going to do when the temps start to drop and we go back to global cooling? Don't tell me that it won't happen because it will happen.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 13:48

What are you going to do when the temps start to drop and we go back to global cooling? Don't tell me that it won't happen because it will happen.

for that i have no answer, but at least ice ages are natural. it would be something i could accept. current climate change i can not accept, because it is unnatural.

i have still to see you make a good argument against the rapid increase in the rate of increase of the temperature.

Versluys

13-09-2005, 15:21

This discussion is interesting, as most people are pointing the finger at ourselves, though we have little to no impact whatsoever. Just one vulcanic eruption blows out more CO2 than we could possibly hope to compensate for, so there is little we can do about too. It's the natural way of things. Earth has been having Ice ages since its formation, all of which occured after a period of global heating. Knowing this is just a temporary thing (one we might not survive, but that's besides the point) I worry more about the impending depletion of oil and gas.

The hole in the Ozon layer is overrated. Most of the radiation is in fact stopped by our magnetic field, not by O3. However, the magnetic field is preparing to flip, or maybe it already has begun (holes in the magnetic field have been spotted and are growing in size). Soon the North pole will be the South and vice versa. The Ozon layer developping holes is in fact evidence of this. Due to the collapse of the magnetic field, Ozon has to stop more radiation, thus more O3 will be converted into O2 than the other way around. Of course, we aren't helping matters by constantly pumping more and more gasses into the atmosphere that hamper the O2 + O -> O3 reaction.

On a side note: the flip of the field will take hundreds of years to complete, so until then we are reliant on the Ozon layer for protection. We might want to save as much of it as possible.

Iztatepopotla

13-09-2005, 15:51

This discussion is interesting, as most people are pointing the finger at ourselves, though we have little to no impact whatsoever. Just one vulcanic eruption blows out more CO2 than we could possibly hope to compensate for, so there is little we can do about too. It's the natural way of things. Earth has been having Ice ages since its formation, all of which occured after a period of global heating. Knowing this is just a temporary thing (one we might not survive, but that's besides the point) I worry more about the impending depletion of oil and gas.

The volcanoes put out a lot of greenhouse gasses an Earth has mechanisms to compensate. But consider the next simplified example, let's say that Earth needs to have 1,000,000 units of greenhouse gas to keep the current temperature. Earth gets rid of 100,000 units of these gasses each year. Volcanoes put out every year 100,000 units of greenhouse gasses. If it wasn't for vocanoes the Earth would run out of greenhouse gasses and become a frozen ball of ice.

However, let's now say that an external source starts putting 100 units of greenhouse gas a year. It's a very small amount, but by the end of a decade Earth will have 1,001,000 of greenhouse gas, 0.1%. And by the end of a century that will be 1% more of greenhouse gas, if the injection of new gas remains constant and not growing.

And yes, Earth goes through periods of cold and warmth, but those are brought on by changes in ocean currents, increase or decrease in vulcanism, changes in solar radiation, and even continental drift. The cause is not mysterious or magical. In fact, by those causes, Earth should be getting colder now, but instead is getting hotter. Hmmm... what could be happening?

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 16:32

The volcanoes put out a lot of greenhouse gasses an Earth has mechanisms to compensate. But consider the next simplified example, let's say that Earth needs to have 1,000,000 units of greenhouse gas to keep the current temperature. Earth gets rid of 100,000 units of these gasses each year. Volcanoes put out every year 100,000 units of greenhouse gasses. If it wasn't for vocanoes the Earth would run out of greenhouse gasses and become a frozen ball of ice.

However, let's now say that an external source starts putting 100 units of greenhouse gas a year. It's a very small amount, but by the end of a decade Earth will have 1,001,000 of greenhouse gas, 0.1%. And by the end of a century that will be 1% more of greenhouse gas, if the injection of new gas remains constant and not growing.

And yes, Earth goes through periods of cold and warmth, but those are brought on by changes in ocean currents, increase or decrease in vulcanism, changes in solar radiation, and even continental drift. The cause is not mysterious or magical. In fact, by those causes, Earth should be getting colder now, but instead is getting hotter. Hmmm... what could be happening?

heh heh heh, nice one.

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 17:11

for that i have no answer, but at least ice ages are natural. it would be something i could accept. current climate change i can not accept, because it is unnatural.

i have still to see you make a good argument against the rapid increase in the rate of increase of the temperature.

I'm still waiting on an explaination to explain past climate changes that weren't affected by Humans.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 17:23

I'm still waiting on an explaination to explain past climate changes that weren't affected by Humans.

that is unimportant, i know that happens, it is entirely natural, so it is nothing we need to worry about. but what is special, and what i have been saying all along, about the last century or so is the rate of increase has shot up unnaturally. please explain that.

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 17:28

that is unimportant, i know that happens, it is entirely natural, so it is nothing we need to worry about.

THANK YOU! You proved my point that it occurs naturally. It isn't unimportant at all. In fact, it is very important to keep that in mind. The Climate has been changing for eons so there really isn't anything we can do to prevent it.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 17:32

THANK YOU! You proved my point that it occurs naturally.

oh jesus w christ...

if we did not have global warming, we would be a block of ice. but too much heat, and we fry, that is why the atmosphere is (or was) at a state of perfect equilibrium, albeit with the occasional wobble. if we throw more green house gases into the atmosphere (as we do) thats going to cause an unbalance.

you cant just read the bits of my posts which sometimes appear to back up your argument, if you look you will see i said the recent rate of increase is entirely man made, or unnatural.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 17:37

THANK YOU! You proved my point that it occurs naturally. It isn't unimportant at all. In fact, it is very important to keep that in mind. The Climate has been changing for eons so there really isn't anything we can do to prevent it.

how did you edit your post with out it saying you did?! *confused*

the climate has not changed this fast, to my knowledge, ever, without some outside interference.

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 17:42

oh jesus w christ...

Now now! No need to cuss. It goes to show your losing your patients as well as the arguement.

if we did not have global warming, we would be a block of ice. but too much heat, and we fry, that is why the atmosphere is (or was) at a state of perfect equilibrium, albeit with the occasional wobble. if we throw more green house gases into the atmosphere (as we do) thats going to cause an unbalance.

Once again, you just said that global warming is a natural event. Your right it is natural. Now your starting to contradict yourself and it is becoming quite obvious.

you cant just read the bits of my posts which sometimes appear to back up your argument, if you look you will see i said the recent rate of increase is entirely man made, or unnatural.

I have. Your saying nothing of importance. Your really not. Current temps as they are maybe man made however, i'm not convinced that they are. We have no idea what is going on because we don't know that much about our own atmosphere. How can we blame something on anything if we don't know that much about our own earth?

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 17:43

how did you edit your post with out it saying you did?! *confused*

the climate has not changed this fast, to my knowledge, ever, without some outside interference.

To your knowledge. Key phrase right there.

We just don't know how fast the climate changed in the past. That was all I needed to know.

Thanks for proving that we just don't know!

Iztatepopotla

13-09-2005, 17:46

I'm still waiting on an explaination to explain past climate changes that weren't affected by Humans.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

Has there been a change in solar radiation reaching Earth of lately?

Corneliu

13-09-2005, 17:52

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

Has there been a change in solar radiation reaching Earth of lately?

Thanks for the article. It is quite informative! :)

As to the 2nd part, I'm going to have to dig to find the answer to that one. As we all know the sun has an 11 year active/inactive cycle. Meaning that at one point earth is receiving more radiation than at another point. Most of this is blocked out anyway.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 18:03

Now now! No need to cuss. It goes to show your losing your patients as well as the arguement.

Once again, you just said that global warming is a natural event. Your right it is natural. Now your starting to contradict yourself and it is becoming quite obvious.

I have. Your saying nothing of importance. Your really not. Current temps as they are maybe man made however, i'm not convinced that they are. We have no idea what is going on because we don't know that much about our own atmosphere. How can we blame something on anything if we don't know that much about our own earth?

1. i am losing my patience, but only because someones not answering a question ive put to them many times.

2. i have not contradicted myself. i have said global warming is a natural, nessecary (sp?) thing, but that the RATE of increase over the past 200 years is almost certainly man made.

3. "Current temps as they are maybe man made however, i'm not convinced that they are." right, thankyou, you have acknowledged that the climate change currently occuring may be related to man. i think it is, you think it isnt, thats fine. but i would like a bit more. if it isnt, what is it? solar expansion is something i know nothing about, and ive got flabbergasted arguing with you so far, so youll have to find someone else. even if you were to accept that it is a man made phenomenon, you would still be against action to reverse the effect, but thats another argument.

To your knowledge. Key phrase right there.

We just don't know how fast the climate changed in the past. That was all I needed to know.

Thanks for proving that we just don't know!

ok, the 'we dont know' argument is a reasonable one, but look at the facts. GG emissions have risen, the temperature is rising. would it not be clever to do something about it now? just in case? even if it is natural, we will be a much greener species, after action is taken.

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 18:16

ok, the 'we dont know' argument is a reasonable one, but look at the facts. GG emissions have risen, the temperature is rising. would it not be clever to do something about it now? just in case? even if it is natural, we will be a much greener species, after action is taken.

The "we don't know" argument isn't reasonable. "We don't know what caused temperatures to rise in the past. We do, however, know what is causing them to rise now. But because we don't know why they rose in the past, we'll wave at the past and use that as an excuse, so we can ignore doing anything about them rising now" is it's basic summation.

And thats sheer, errant bullshit.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 18:20

HowTheDeadLive

13-09-2005, 18:23

maybe instead of 'reasonable', i should have said 'is something approaching an argument', going by cornelius apparent lack of them.

I love the irony of people making posts on here saying "SCIENCE IS THE NEW RELIGION LOLZ YOU USE THE FACTS YOU WANT", then following it by...using the facts they want - literally a very small number of facts not really connected to the truth about global warming - to "disprove" science.

It's beautiful. It's the American way <heart swells>

Waterkeep

13-09-2005, 18:26

Is global warming and cooling natural? Yes.
Is it affected by man? Possibly. Evidence is leaning in that direction (though there are other explanations, but they rely on coincidence.. "coincidentally, a mini-ice-age ended just as the industrial revolution started")

However, these are the wrong questions.

The question you need to be asking is "Given the consequences of inaction vs the consequences of action, is it prudent to ignore the possibility?"

I've always likened the whole situation to a bunch of people in a car on a foggy night. We all look ahead and we can faintly make out a pair of red lights up ahead. Some are saying we should slow down our economic engine in case it's a stopped car ahead of us. Others are saying if we haven't hit anything yet, then if it's anything it's a moving car and there's no need to slow down.

Me? I'm putting on my seatbelt and hoping for the best.

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 18:26

I love the irony of people making posts on here saying "SCIENCE IS THE NEW RELIGION LOLZ YOU USE THE FACTS YOU WANT", then following it by...using the facts they want - literally a very small number of facts not really connected to the truth about global warming - to "disprove" science.

It's beautiful. It's the American way <heart swells>

hehehe.

blimey its depressing.

Tel Fyr Mora

13-09-2005, 18:32

Global warming is happening, and it can't be stopped. It should happen anyway becouse the earth has just gone through global cooling. We know this becouse parts of Antarctica used to be liveable and the U.K. used to be a tropical island. So these scientists who say its a big deal are taking it too far. Thow stopping green house gasses is a very good idea and should carry on. Maybe these scientists are useing green house gasses as an excuse to get the world to notice and stop using fossil fuels?

[NS]Hawkintom

13-09-2005, 18:51

the vast majority of the worlds scientists are in consensus over this.

No they really aren't. In fact, the original Kyoto agreement was a fiasco!

On July 24, 1997, President Clinton produced the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. He announced that the catastrophic effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now considered a fact by the 2,500+ scientists who had signed off on the report.

He was lying.

To start with, the vast majority of the scientists who signed off on the report were not scientists, but political representatives from their countries, ranging from Albania to Zimbabwe. These people largely had political science degrees and were given a portion of the report to review. Then, even if they reviewed it negatively, they were listed as one of the 2,500 scientists that had "reviewed" it. (Distortion that Michael Moore would be proud of my friends.)

Only 78 of the attendees were actually involved in producing the report.

Then, the executive summary was written by a small IPCC steering group and MODIFIED AFTER the original "scientists" had signed off on it. (Imagine signing a mortgage and the lender modifying it AFTER you signed it.)

Here are some of the things they REMOVED from the report AFTER it had been signed...

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/environmentallaw/road-envv3i3.htm

Kyoto is a political game, not a scientific game. You are being lied to my friend.

p.s. the sun expanding theory is not one im clued up with, but it *may* be slightly true, but i very much doubt it. its far more likely that...

A couple of thoughts.

1. How come you get to say my pet theory *may* be true, but your pet theory is absolute. I showed you good graphs that correlate the Earth's temperature to solar activity.

2. You have not read, or did not understand, the material if you interpreted it as "the sun expanding." That is NOT what is being suggested. Solar ACTIVITY is the basis of the theory.

carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas-> industrialisation produces carbon dioxide-> the world is heavily industrialised-> the world gets hotter.

Are you sure about that? Because the scientists who wrote the IPCC paper weren't. The greenhouse theory oversimplifies a complex scenario. (As usual.) It doesn't take into account the fact that photosynthesis generally depends on CO2 and that plant life should greatly increase as CO2 levels increase.

It also ignores the fact that measured data defies the greenhouse theory.

to ignore this now is going to cause vast problems for people living in coastal and climatically fragile areas.

You BELIEVE that. You do not know that. It is your "religion." My religion is that mankind is arrogant and thinks they are so awesome that they must negatively affect the world around them and they believe they can control nature. I have equal science to back my beliefs over yours.

this includes me. i do my bit, i dont drive, i cycle, i try to buy locally produced food, i leave no electrical appliances on standby, i campaign for more windfarms, etc etc.

Good for you. I've got a meeting to go to at work right now. I'm going to get in my 2002 Corvette Z06 and go to work. Gas is back down to around $3.00 a gallon right now, so I'll fill up on my way home. Hopefully my wife will be home from work with her SUV when I get back and we are going to grill some pork chops this evening.

Then I'll sleep well tonight, knowing I did my part to help balance out what you did today, and hopefully helped prevent another ice-age.

:)

Taverham high

13-09-2005, 19:24

Hawkintom']No they really aren't. In fact, the original Kyoto agreement was a fiasco!

*snip*

Kyoto is a political game, not a scientific game. You are being lied to my friend.

A couple of thoughts.

1. How come you get to say my pet theory *may* be true, but your pet theory is absolute. I showed you good graphs that correlate the Earth's temperature to solar activity.

2. You have not read, or did not understand, the material if you interpreted it as "the sun expanding." That is NOT what is being suggested. Solar ACTIVITY is the basis of the theory.

Are you sure about that? Because the scientists who wrote the IPCC paper weren't. The greenhouse theory oversimplifies a complex scenario. (As usual.) It doesn't take into account the fact that photosynthesis generally depends on CO2 and that plant life should greatly increase as CO2 levels increase.

It also ignores the fact that measured data defies the greenhouse theory.

You BELIEVE that. You do not know that. It is your "religion." My religion is that mankind is arrogant and thinks they are so awesome that they must negatively affect the world around them and they believe they can control nature. I have equal science to back my beliefs over yours.

Good for you. I've got a meeting to go to at work right now. I'm going to get in my 2002 Corvette Z06 and go to work. Gas is back down to around $3.00 a gallon right now, so I'll fill up on my way home. Hopefully my wife will be home from work with her SUV when I get back and we are going to grill some pork chops this evening.

Then I'll sleep well tonight, knowing I did my part to help balance out what you did today, and hopefully helped prevent another ice-age.

:)

youll have to forgive my anecdotal evidence, but im very sure i saw a documentary or something which said something around 90% of climatic scientists are inconsensus over climate change. this has stuck in my mind, and to me and a lot of non americans it is gospel. i will take your word on the kyoto thing.

a couple of answers:
1. if not, we wouldnt have much of an argument, would we?
2. ive already stated many times i know nothing about the solar activity thing.

i simplified it to ram my point home to corneliu, who did not seem to be listening atall. that said, i believe that the basic explanation still works.

yes, its what i believe, in the same way that you do not know, you believe, but thats a different argument.

wouldnt it be far better to stop polluting anyway? return to a more natural way of life? even if rapid climate change does turn out to be natural, we will have a lot cleaner planet. i cannot see the problem with it myself.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 20:40

Found this on Volcanoes and Man Caused Global Warming and Ozone Depletion. Interesting for those who are saying that Volcanoes do more harm than man could ever do.

"Ozone depletion by volcanic eruption is a recent phenomenon, said Robock. "Elevated levels of chlorine in the stratosphere only started appearing within the last couple of decades due to human activity," he said"

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2002/200202157818.html

[NS]Hawkintom

13-09-2005, 20:46

youll have to forgive my anecdotal evidence, but im very sure i saw a documentary or something which said something around 90% of climatic scientists are inconsensus over climate change. this has stuck in my mind, and to me and a lot of non americans it is gospel. i will take your word on the kyoto thing.

Sorry, but I won't forgive your anecdotal evidence. You want me to change my lifestyle based on your beliefs, the least you can do is google your sources! :)

Don't take my word on Kyoto either. Look it up!

http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html

As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow...

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Here's a list of the scientists that have signed that declaration:

SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The list will be updated as these verifications come in.
Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University
Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University
Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.
Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK
Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.
Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany
Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.
Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio
Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.
Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.
Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK
Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht
Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.
Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).
Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida
Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University
Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.
Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany
Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii
Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado
Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia
Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University
Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy, London, England.
Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium
Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK
Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.
Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.
Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

yes, its what i believe, in the same way that you do not know, you believe, but thats a different argument.

Actually no, it was my initial statement on post #9 of this thread...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9627912&postcount=9

The HONEST answer is "We have no idea."

Science = the new religion. People BELIEVE what they wanna believe, and then pick whichever report (Bible, Koran, etc...) backs their beliefs and then quotes it as if it were fact.

wouldnt it be far better to stop polluting anyway? return to a more natural way of life? even if rapid climate change does turn out to be natural, we will have a lot cleaner planet. i cannot see the problem with it myself.

You ask several questions, but ultimately the answer to all of them is "no."

Shoud we stop polluting? No. Should we decrease pollution? Absolutely. But not to the point that it decreases the quality of life for human beings. Especially not based on fantastic (used in the form of: based on fantasy) science.

Should we return to a more natural way of life? No. Not me anyway. You can do whatever you like. That's my libertarian belief system that I don't think you share. See, I won't tell you how to live. Live off the land, move to Siberia and reject modern convenience, I don't care. But don't tell ME how to live.

Most of all though, it is disgraceful that some would use false science, to try and model the world's politics to achieve their goals at the expense of others. That's what Kyoto really is if you honestly research it. They've already achieved a great deal of their goals. People like you believe in global warming as fact. Most people do. But very few of them have actually researched it.

To be fair to you, who has the time to research every last scientific belief out there. We tend to trust the people that claim to be the leaders in the scientific fields. Delegation makes sense. Let those who specialize in a field simplify what they know, generalize it, and feed it to us. It would be a great system if people were honest. But they aren't. They have egos, politics, agendas, and "beliefs" and those get wrapped up in their science. And we end up with bad science sometimes.

Want proof?

How about this:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

That was the "scientific belief" of the seventies. The arguments for it sounded a lot like your arguments now, didn't they?

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view...

See why I'm skeptical???

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 20:55

Hawkintom']To be fair to you, who has the time to research every last scientific belief out there. We tend to trust the people that claim to be the leaders in the scientific fields. Delegation makes sense. Let those who specialize in a field simplify what they know, generalize it, and feed it to us. It would be a great system if people were honest. But they aren't. They have egos, politics, agendas, and "beliefs" and those get wrapped up in their science. And we end up with bad science sometimes.

Want proof?

How about this:

That was the "scientific belief" of the seventies. The arguments for it sounded a lot like your arguments now, didn't they?

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view...

See why I'm skeptical???
And I just found this...

"This research undercuts claims by greenhouse skeptics that no warming has occurred during the last two decades. These claims are based on satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere, which show little or no warming since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979."
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=3839&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Volcanic%20Debris%20Masks%20Warming&Cache=False

Before anyone says anything about the website, please look at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) http://www.llnl.gov/

Versluys

13-09-2005, 20:59

Call to power

13-09-2005, 20:59

"Ozone depletion by volcanic eruption is a recent phenomenon, said Robock.

FACT
Napoleons failed invasion of Russia was also affected by a volcanoes going off in Africa causing a harsher winter

"Elevated levels of chlorine in the stratosphere only started appearing within the last couple of decades due to human activity,"

chlorine doesn’t damage the ozone and isn’t it a heavy gas? (hint remember the trenches)

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 21:02

FACT
chlorine doesn’t damage the ozone and isn’t it a heavy gas? (hint remember the trenches)
From the article you didn't read:
Because the Antarctic region is so cold, clouds are able to form in the stratosphere, Robock said. The cloud particles serve as surfaces to allow sunlight to catalyze chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine pollutants that destroy ozone, he noted.

Ravenshrike

13-09-2005, 21:07

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.
Sure it may mean better summers for us but i dont want better sumers i want natural summers.
The hole in the ozone is a relatively separate matter from the idea of man-made global warming. As we have for the most part stopped spewing CFC's into hte atmosphere, the hole will close up on its own. Global warming itself is not a particularly contentious idea, whether or not humans contribute to the majorityor even a large minority is.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 21:08

People don't like listening to me, do they. Like I stated in my previous post, which I am too tired to quote right now, the fault of the global increase in temperature lies with the collapse of the magnetic field. The field catches and deflects solar radiation, including infra red (heat) UV (the cancer causing thing) and several other forms. This is a scientifically proven fact. Measurements show the field is collapsing. This, however, it totally out of our control. We cannot prevent it, nor did we cause it. It's nature's way.
It's a possible theory but one under heavy attack. Suggesting to do nothing for something which might not even be true is not wise.

Artificially enhanced"
But some climatologists believe that people are pushing the hypothesis that the Sun's magnetic field affects climate on Earth even though they lack the data to back it up.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was one of 11 authors who published a letter in January criticising Shaviv's paper, arguing that the researchers "applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation" (EOS, vol 85, p 38).

"The main proponents are so wedded to the hypothesis that they think they just have to find the right correlation and then they are done," he says.

The idea that cosmic rays influence climate "is one of only a few truly new theories in Earth science," says Steven Lloyd, an atmospheric scientist from the Johns Hopkins University in Laurel, Maryland, who will chair the session on cosmic rays and climate next week. But "the political implications of the research muddy the waters", he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270&lpos=home1

Call to power

13-09-2005, 21:12

From the article you didn't read:
Because the Antarctic region is so cold, clouds are able to form in the stratosphere, Robock said. The cloud particles serve as surfaces to allow sunlight to catalyze chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine pollutants that destroy ozone, he noted.

:confused: how would a temp on the ground anywhere have an affect on the stratosphere (very cold up there pretty much space!)

word equation

O3 (ozone made up of oxygen with three atoms) + CL = O3 (well by then it would of broken down) + some very cold CL must I always point to why chlorine was used in trench warfare

Capita Mantra

13-09-2005, 21:12

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.
Sure it may mean better summers for us but i dont want better sumers i want natural summers.

Yep, and the ozon layer has been growing again for the last few years, with no evidence whatsoever that it 's caused by all the industry-killing regulations.

Call to power

13-09-2005, 21:14

Yep, and the ozon layer has been growing again for the last few years, with no evidence whatsoever that it 's caused by all the industry-killing regulations.

no it's closing up since we got rid of CFC's

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 21:39

:confused: how would a temp on the ground anywhere have an affect on the stratosphere (very cold up there pretty much space!)

word equation

O3 (ozone made up of oxygen with three atoms) + CL = O3 (well by then it would of broken down) + some very cold CL must I always point to why chlorine was used in trench warfare
I'm sure Scientists just "believe" chlorine is formed there. They just, you know, say things to hear themselves speak.

Call to power

13-09-2005, 21:42

I'm sure Scientists just "believe" chlorine is formed there. They just, you know, say things to hear themselves speak.

ever heard of the sheep affect :rolleyes:

anyone remember the series Bullsh!t where they got all those people who really should know better to sign a partition banning water :D

“it’s in lakes and rivers everywhere!”

you really should make a better argument

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 21:55

ever heard of the sheep affect :rolleyes:

anyone remember the series Bullsh!t where they got all those people who really should know better to sign a partition banning water :D

“it’s in lakes and rivers everywhere!”

you really should make a better argument
A better argument was not needed. It was explained in the link.

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 22:06

Google results for Chlorine in Stratosphere:

The chlorine released in the stratosphere can then participate in ozone depleting
reactions as does chlorine liberated from the photolysis of CFCs. ...
www.cmdl.noaa.gov/noah/flask/hcfc.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

EO Library: Ozone Page 2
Fortunately, chlorine atoms do not remain in the stratosphere forever. When a
free chlorine atom reacts with gases such as methane (CH4), it is bound up ...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Ozone/ozone_2.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Ozone Depletion FAQ Part II: Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine
Keywords: ozone layer cfc stratosphere chlorine bromine volcanoes Archive-name:
... 4.4) Volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than CFC's. ...
www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/ - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

CHLORINE IN THE ATMOSPHERE -------------------------- CONTENTS 1 ...
CHLORINE IN THE STRATOSPHERE - OVERVIEW 1.1) Where does the Chlorine in the ...
The total amount of chlorine in the stratosphere has increased by a factor ...
zebu.uoregon.edu/text/ozone - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or ...
Most of the chlorine in the stratosphere is there as a result of human activities.
Many compounds containing chlorine are released at the ground, ...
www.unep.ch/ozone/qstn3.shtml - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

- Chlorine chemistry
Primary sources of chlorine entering the stratosphere in the early 1990's.
source: UNEP/WMO ... 2. a) Basic chlorine chemistry in the stratosphere. ...
www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/ 2__Ozone/-_Chlorine_chemistry_209.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

US EPA: Ozone Depletion
Another 15% of the chlorine entering the stratosphere derived from methyl chloride.
However, fully 82% of stratospheric chlorine came from ODS, ...
www.epa.gov/ozone/science/volcano.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Preserving Earth's stratosphere
The chlorine found in the stratosphere comes principally from chlorofluorocarbons.
Although vast amounts of chlorine are found on the earth in the form of ...
www.memagazine.org/backissues/ october98/features/stratos/stratos.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

An Introduction to the Science of Ozone Depletion
... life produce one stable form of chlorine that does reach the stratosphere.
... chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 15%. ...
greennature.com/article33.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

All About Ozone
The chlorine in these human-made molecules does reach the stratosphere.
Measurements show that the increase in stratospheric chlorine since 1985 matches the ...
www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0800624.html - 21k - Sep 11, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Desperate Measures

13-09-2005, 22:49

no it's closing up since we got rid of CFC's
It's seasonal.

Straughn

14-09-2005, 02:39

Hawkintom']No, it's too complicated for YOUR mind to understand. So you choose to pretend that it is caused by something you can control, rather than accept that there are things we cannot control.
How clever. Whoa, Oscar Wilde, step aside.
That's not what i said, so try channeling it through your squishy noggin' a few + times. There's quite a few things that are obviously uncontrollable by humans, and on occasion it would appear stupidity is in the top 5.

Hawkintom']
You stated several articles that appeared to support your side of the global warming argument,
and not (as I said) you stand on those "Bibles" and state that you are right.

Hmmm, sounds kinda like gibberish. Maybe that's the problem here. I'll let that slide i guess since it would be disingenuous of me to ASS U ME that english is your first language.

Hawkintom']
Now consider this:

I can do more if you like, but to sum it up, there are plenty of scientific studies that show that solar activity has far more to do with the temperature of our planet than human activity.

Now, (as I said) we both begin to get out our scientific studies (Bibles) and declare that our study is better than the other guy's study.

Your ball...
Well, it's nice and all that you toss a study in, at least that way you can spread out the responsibility and honor of appearing to be a buffoon with the people mentioned in your study .... hmmm.

Until you know me better you can just assume that some people rely on research a lot more than they do on what some guy on an internet forum has to say about the subject. I would expect as much from the people who read my posts.

Desperate Measures

14-09-2005, 02:45

There is simply not enough research compiled yet for the solar magnetic whatever theory. Plus, there are scientists claiming evidence had been tampered with. To believe in this theory without skepticism is foolish.

Straughn

14-09-2005, 02:48

Desperate Measures

14-09-2005, 02:52

Are you saying someone is tampering with the sun?
*grrrr*
Personally, I mean don't tell anyone this: looters.

Stealing sun spots.

You didn't hear it from me.

Straughn

14-09-2005, 02:52

How clever. Whoa, Oscar Wilde, step aside.
That's not what i said, so try channeling it through your squishy noggin' a few + times. There's quite a few things that are obviously uncontrollable by humans, and on occasion it would appear stupidity is in the top 5.

Hmmm, sounds kinda like gibberish. Maybe that's the problem here. I'll let that slide i guess since it would be disingenuous of me to ASS U ME that english is your first language.

Well, it's nice and all that you toss a study in, at least that way you can spread out the responsibility and honor of appearing to be a buffoon with the people mentioned in your study .... hmmm.

Until you know me better you can just assume that some people rely on research a lot more than they do on what some guy on an internet forum has to say about the subject. I would expect as much from the people who read my posts.
Yeah, there's a few things i'll point out that make a *LAYPERSON* think a bit about the subject matter you present ....

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
.....
and
.....

The data have not changed since 1992 and the present scientific evidence is still insufficient to take global warming seriously.
Well the first one, if you think about it, is obviously not very clever at all. I think you could figure it out if you thought about it enough ....

The second one ... okay, i guess that's dissuasive enough from the f*cking MOUNTAINS of essays papers studies and such that are *CURRENT* that are paying attention to the real problem that if i were the kind of person to just sit back, takin' it in the shorts like the breeze-kinda person, then your philosophy would work.
Too bad it's not quite so hard to do research after all.

Keep posting, it's worth it in some respect or another.

Straughn

14-09-2005, 02:53

Personally, I mean don't tell anyone this: looters.

Stealing sun spots.

You didn't hear it from me.
Those BASTARDS!!!
*tears at phone book with his teeth*

Desperate Measures

14-09-2005, 03:45

Those BASTARDS!!!
*tears at phone book with his teeth*
*Looks at my phone book in horror*

Desperate Measures

14-09-2005, 20:37

Bump.... because you are not tired of debating this!

[NS]Hawkintom

14-09-2005, 22:17

Hmmm, sounds kinda like gibberish. Maybe that's the problem here. I'll let that slide i guess since it would be disingenuous of me to ASS U ME that english is your first language.

You can always ask... I'll assume (oops) that was a question of sorts and assure you that English is my first, and really only, language. Although I have visited several European countries and I was able to speak British well enough to get by for a week in London! Also, I can manage to ask "how much," and say "hello," "goodbye," "thank you" and "excuse me" in Italian, French and Spanish. :)

Well, it's nice and all that you toss a study in, at least that way you can spread out the responsibility and honor of appearing to be a buffoon with the people mentioned in your study .... hmmm.

You mean these buffons?

SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The list will be updated as these verifications come in.
Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University
Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University
Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.
Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK
Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.
Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany
Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.
Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio
Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.
Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.
Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK
Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht
Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.
Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).
Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida
Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University
Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.
Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany
Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii
Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado
Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia
Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University
Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy, London, England.
Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium
Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK
Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.
Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.
Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

Until you know me better you can just assume that some people rely on research a lot more than they do on what some guy on an internet forum has to say about the subject. I would expect as much from the people who read my posts.

Good for you! Now I'm going to try and decipher your second post (not criticizing the content, but the formatting is a little whack and I'm going to see if I can make heads of tails of it and reply to it as well...

:)

Update, I can't figure your next post out... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9635417&postcount=148

You quote your previous post and then reply to it in a way that I cannot tell even which side you are arguing. If you can clear up the context of formatting I'll try to keep playing the game!

Heck, you might even be agreeing with me, I can't tell.

[NS]Hawkintom

14-09-2005, 22:26

The "we don't know" argument isn't reasonable. "We don't know what caused temperatures to rise in the past. We do, however, know what is causing them to rise now. But because we don't know why they rose in the past, we'll wave at the past and use that as an excuse, so we can ignore doing anything about them rising now" is it's basic summation.

And thats sheer, errant bullshit.

No it isn't, because your argument sheerly errs by making the assumption that we do know what is causing them to rise right now. We don't know. The best climatologists and meteorologists in the world can't reliably tell you what the temperature will be in a few days, and you believe they know what is going on with a 4+ billion year old system based on accurate measurements from a century or so?

That's SOME EXTRAPOLATING!!!

[NS]Hawkintom

14-09-2005, 22:50

This is from those wacky guys at NASA...

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html

Is Earth's Temperature Up or Down or Both?

Scientists Investigate Reasons for Temperature Trend "Disagreements" Between Layers of the Atmosphere

Thermometers on the ground, measuring the near-surface air temperature, demonstrate a marked increase in globally-averaged temperature over the past two decades. Computer models of global warming predict that the temperature trend in the Earth's thick lower atmosphere, called the lower troposphere, should be experiencing an even more pronounced warming that increases smoothly with altitude. And yet, satellite observations of the temperature of the Earth's lower troposphere do not reveal any overall warming trend. Although interpreted by some as a controversy, research from NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center and the Global Hydrology and Climate Center now suggests that the temperature structure of the atmosphere is more complex than we (and our computer models) originally thought.

These results will be presented today (February 6) at the 77th meeting of the American Metorological Society in Long Beach, California in a special session dedicated to the scientific study of global warming.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a scientist at NASA/Marshall and principal author on the paper, has been monitoring the temperature of layers in the Earth's atmosphere from space. Along with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Spencer has produced a temperature record spanning 18 years. Acquired from Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) instruments flying aboard the TIROS series of weather satellites. Their data show temperature variations in the lower troposphere, a region from the surface to about 5 miles into the atmosphere.

"The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 in the lower troposphere. We see major excursions due to volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, and ocean current phenomena like El Nino, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling," Spencer remarked.

However, temperature measurements on land and ocean are up. "Thermometers taking the temperature at the surface show a warming trend of about +0.10 to +0.15 degrees Celsius per decade," Spencer continued. "Current computer models of global warming always predict that the temperature variations at the surface should increase smoothly with height as you go up through the lowest 8 miles of the atmosphere." This should make the temperature trend in the troposphere not only upward, but more pronounced than on the surface.

But the space-based measurements show a more complex vertical structure, with cooling in the lower portion of this deep layer and warming in the upper portion. Spencer and co-author Dr. William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation have great confidence in the quality of their satellite data. "We've concluded there isn't a problem with the measurements," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results."

"Instead, we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved. These models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere," remarked Spencer.

These poorly modeled processes are all related to convection. This is the continual overturning of the atmosphere that occurs as water, evaporated from the Earth's surface, carries excess heat energy into the upper atmosphere where it can be more efficiently radiated to outer space. This convective redistribution, the scientists theorize, may be part of what causes the interesting height-dependent structure in the temperature variations seen in the MSU data. Spencer says that the models also suffer from "numerical diffusion," wherein water vapor in the lower atmosphere is allowed to unrealistically diffuse into the upper atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse blanket. "All of these effects together make the computer-modeled atmosphere look much more vertically uniform than it probably is," Spencer concluded.

[NS]Hawkintom

14-09-2005, 22:53

More NASA stuff...

Implications for Global Warming Theory

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced.

However global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of the Earth's lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. These satellite data are verified by in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world.

Some scientists now believe that this apparent "disagreement" between the predictions by computer models and the measurements may be due to a less-than-accurate modeling of the role of water-vapor in the atmosphere of the GCM's.

HowTheDeadLive

14-09-2005, 22:54

Hawkintom']No it isn't, because your argument sheerly errs by making the assumption that we do know what is causing them to rise right now. We don't know. The best climatologists and meteorologists in the world can't reliably tell you what the temperature will be in a few days, and you believe they know what is going on with a 4+ billion year old system based on accurate measurements from a century or so?

That's SOME EXTRAPOLATING!!!

This graph goes back to the year 1000. See the trend?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/temp_changes.stm

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 00:36

This graph goes back to the year 1000. See the trend?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/temp_changes.stm

Do YOU see the trend? What are those temperatures based on? I know the answer to that by the way. It is a loaded graph.

A. It is scaled so as to make the jumps look huge, when in reality we are talking about a single DEGREE F and just over 1/2 A DEGREE Celsius.

B. They are based on a carefully chosen dataset. Want to know what that dataset is?

Bet you have to look it up...

Oh yeah, and...

C. How do you suppose they get those measurements of temperature from 1000 AD? Hint: The same way they arrive at the global warming phenomena...

Straughn

15-09-2005, 01:11

Hawkintom']You can always ask... I'll assume (oops) that was a question of sorts and assure you that English is my first, and really only, language. Although I have visited several European countries and I was able to speak British well enough to get by for a week in London! Also, I can manage to ask "how much," and say "hello," "goodbye," "thank you" and "excuse me" in Italian, French and Spanish. :)

You mean these buffons?

Good for you! Now I'm going to try and decipher your second post (not criticizing the content, but the formatting is a little whack and I'm going to see if I can make heads of tails of it and reply to it as well...

:)

Update, I can't figure your next post out... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9635417&postcount=148

You quote your previous post and then reply to it in a way that I cannot tell even which side you are arguing. If you can clear up the context of formatting I'll try to keep playing the game!

Heck, you might even be agreeing with me, I can't tell.
Bella, bella ....
One, i was noting that you don't necessarily have the cornerpin of wit by attempting to turn around the argument, and if you know anything about Wilde, you'd know that.

Second ...
Originally Posted by [NS]Hawkintom
You stated several articles that appeared to support your side of the global warming argument,
and not (as I said) you stand on those "Bibles" and state that you are right.
...that's what i meant by "gibberish".

Third ... if i'm agreeing with you i would agree that you should back up your arguments. That's a good start.

Fourth, i said "appearing to be" buffoons.

Fifth, it's kind of crucial to the argument, being time-sensitive and all, that you produce CURRENT posts and not stuff from 10 or 20 years ago. This is a current issue and obviously should be dealt with with the most pertinent and up-to-date factual data.

Straughn

15-09-2005, 01:18

I'll give an example of "current", maybe a few others.

*ayhem*

Scientists link warmer weather to beetle outbreak
The bugs are a normal part of the forest cycle, but recent high temperatures
encouraged growth

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: September 11, 2005
Last Modified: September 11, 2005 at 08:03 AM

HOMER -- When Scott Brandt-Ericksen read of Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent
trip to Alaska and her alarm over bark beetles migrating north due to global
warming, he burst out laughing. Then he got annoyed.

"While global warming may be an issue, the spruce bark beetle kill problem
has not been tied to global warming," he wrote in a letter to the Daily
News. "It is insulting and a disservice to the public to have the AP and the
Daily News peddling such malarkey as if it were scientific fact."

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough attorney elaborated in a later interview: "Is
it an urban legend, or is there any scientific basis? That's one of my pet
peeves, when people have repeated speculation enough for it to be considered
fact."

Indeed, in the decade that it took for the spruce bark beetle epidemic here
to reach unprecedented proportions, killing four million acres of forest in
Southcentral Alaska, the notion that higher temperatures were to blame
evolved from a tentative hypothesis to an article of accepted wisdom. By
2002, The New York Times said the dead forests may be "one of the world's
most visible monuments to climate change."

Brandt-Ericksen was not alone in wondering whether circumstantial evidence
was being misused for political purposes. The forests had been allowed to
grow old and vulnerable, many people said. Have scientists really been able
to prove a link between warmer temperatures and the miles of gray, lifeless
forests?

In fact, they say, they have.

Through a combination of field sampling in buggy forests, computer analysis
of tree growth rings and historical fire data, and careful examination of
competing theories, forest scientists have reached a consensus that the
woods of the Kenai Peninsula would not have been so thoroughly wiped out
without an increase in the local summer average temperatures of some 2.5
degrees Fahrenheit since 1987.

"The difficulty was you had a natural coexistent system between trees and
bugs, and outbreaks had happened many times in the past," said Glenn Juday,
a professor of forest ecology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "So
what made this different?"

Finding the answer involved a classic piece of scientific sleuthing. But the
quiet background research was obscured for a while by noisier foreground
political battles fought over mankind's supposed role in bringing on the
epidemic, either through mismanagement of the forests or pollution of the
earth's atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

For residents of the Kenai Peninsula, the loss of their forests came with
little warning. When the spruce bark beetles first hit in the late 1980s,
entomologists predicted the outbreaks would be relatively short-lived,
killing off the oldest trees. Homeowners were instructed in defensive
techniques such as stripping bark off red-needled spruce and felling trap
trees. These efforts proved useless in the face of the coming beetle hordes,
which attacked healthy young trees and flew so thick they left a brown tide
line on the shores of Cook Inlet.

Today, beetle activity has abated because there are few mature trees left to
attack. The last red-needle outbreaks on the Kenai could be seen this summer
in the high country south of Turnagain Pass. The area is traditionally one
of the last to lose snow in spring, but earlier melting in recent years may
have made them vulnerable, entomologists say. With most of the Kenai's old
forests now dead and rotting, the real beetle action lately has been to the
west, in the Iliamna Lake and Kuskokwim River areas. New outbreaks have also
been seen closer to Anchorage, in the Indian and Bird Creek valleys.

One thing was clear from the start: the beetles hadn't "migrated north,
drawn by higher temperatures," as The Associated Press account of Sen.
Clinton's visit put it. The beetles have always been part of the Kenai
Peninsula forests, serving an ecological role in killing off small stands of
ripe, older trees.

A taciturn ecologist for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge who calls
himself a "forest detective" was the first scientist to begin probing the
links between the spreading beetle outbreak and warmer temperatures. Ed
Berg, a former philosophy student and carpenter, started with circumstantial
evidence — a string of warmer-than-average summers beginning in 1987.

"We had summer temperature records in Homer going back to 1932," he said. "I
perceived this was an unusually long run of warm summers."

Studies had shown that spruce beetle hot spots usually stop spreading
because of downturns in temperature. Two consecutive cold winters freeze the
beetle larvae buried under the spruce bark, or a wet, cool summer
discourages the emergence and flight to new trees. But this time there was
no cooling-off period to stop the beetles.

Berg found that past drought periods had triggered short beetle outbreaks,
presumably by stressing the spruce. He assembled evidence of current
drought. What's more, in unusually warm weather like the Kenai was getting,
the two-year life cycle of the insect could be cut to one year, effectively
doubling the population of beetles.

One such hot year was 1993. That was the summer Berg started going into the
woods to take core samples of trees. In areas where beetles had killed trees
in the past, he found evidence in tree rings of a burst of growth in young
spruce once the older canopy thinned. He was then able to look elsewhere to
find and date earlier outbreaks.

His conclusion: Beetles were a natural recycling agent on the Kenai
Peninsula, where the coastal climate meant few lightning-started wildfires.
Earlier outbreaks, some of them extensive, had always eventually shut down.
This kind of wholesale forest destruction was unprecedented.

"That was a key — that earlier events had been low-frequency and spatially
separated," said UAF professor Juday, who carried Berg's work into the
broader conversation about changes in the Arctic.

Some skeptics remained. Jerry Boughton, a forest health specialist with the
U.S. Forest Service, stressed that the woods were filled with aging trees
susceptible to bug attacks. For a time, this became the preferred
explanation for those who wanted to see more active management, including
logging, of the forests.

As a Voice of the Times editorial put it in 2001: "Though a New York Times
reporter once claimed that the Chugach National Forest beetle explosion was
caused by global warming, the experts seem to feel zealous fire suppression
and logging bans caused the trees to grow old, densely spaced and
susceptible to insect attack."

The problem with that hypothesis, said Juday, is that the data don't back it
up. The aging forest contributed to the problem, he said. But there was no
evidence that the forests hadn't been just as old and vulnerable during
outbreaks 200 years ago.

Logging was never a factor in keeping Kenai Peninsula forests thinned, and
the policy of suppressing all fires lasted only two decades, beginning
around 1960, not long enough to have a major effect on the age of the trees,
Juday said. Human management is a useful explanation for forest insect
problems in the Rocky Mountain West, he said. But it didn't apply here.

Others suggested sloppy clearing practices by more recent loggers were to
blame. Scientists responded that the epidemic may have gotten a boost from
trees left on the ground after clearing of transmission lines but still
wouldn't have grown to such proportions without the higher temperatures.

The final word on the beetles and climate change may have been heard last
year, in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment published by an
inter-governmental forum, the Arctic Council. It was the work of 300
scientists from 18 countries. Juday, who wrote the chapter on forest health,
said it was one of the most thoroughly peer-reviewed pieces he's written. He
said he sifted through other explanations — the "decadent forest," the
genetic vulnerability of the hybrid Lutz spruce in the area — before
concluding that warming temperatures were the major cause.

"We've got a pretty good tentative conclusion now. But science can only do
so much," said Juday. "You develop a hypothesis, you make observations, you
try all the reasonable explanations and knock some of them down and then see
what's left standing."

Boughton, who now works for the federal forest service in Pennsylvania, said
he has always believed that rising temperatures helped push the beetles'
spread in Alaska. But he said he draws the line when anyone tries to
attribute those dead trees to excessive burning of fossil fuels rather than
to natural climate cycles. Others, including members of Alaska's
congressional delegation, have expressed similar reservations.

That's where the debate is heading now, said Juday. It's beyond the reach of
forest ecology. Juday, who thinks human emissions are partly to blame for
climate change, is impatient with misuse of the scientific work from any
political direction.

"Look, both factors are involved. You can't deny that natural changes are
part of it. Nobody flipped a switch and turned that off," he said. "But
nobody is trying to argue that case."

He said he has cautioned advocacy groups about oversimplifying the forest
health issue for dramatic purposes. "We have to put the brakes on some of
these enthusiasts who want to use one forest fire to stop global warming,"
he said. On the other hand, he said, the evidence of change in the Arctic —
from forest fires, receding glaciers, coastal erosion — is consistent.

Berg has gone on to do other work on the Kenai refuge, investigating
treeline changes, for example, including the straightening up of the stunted
alpine hemlock known as krummholz. Lately he has been taking core samples of
drying muskegs, finding that the surface spread of woody plants such as
blueberry and dwarf birch is a brand new phenomenon. Peat deposits dating
back 10,000 years show no evidence of woody roots, he said.

"The shrub invasion seems to be going full bore," Berg said.

Ed Holsten, a retired forest service entomologist gradually won over to the
global warming theory, said he expects Alaska will face more insect problems
in the near future, even as the bark beetle's day fades. He mentioned such
spreading pests as the birch leaf miner, which mottles birch leaves, and the
larch sawfly.

Not that the spruce bark beetle is going away. Scientists expect the bug
will remain part of the warmer ecosystem, ready to nip off the young
surviving spruce once they reach maturity. A handful of older trees seem
resistant to attack, for unknown reasons. But Juday's chapter concludes that
efforts to replant spruce and bring back the old forest on a new cycle may
be doomed.

For forest scientists, the interesting question no longer is what caused all
the trees to die, but what kind of landscape will replace them.
--------

Straughn

15-09-2005, 01:19

Hawkintom']More NASA stuff...
Date it, per favore.

Straughn

15-09-2005, 01:21

Hawkintom']This is from those wacky guys at NASA...

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html
Cannot find server? Maybe it's my timing ....

Straughn

15-09-2005, 01:25

From those "wacky" guys at the U.S. administration ...

Bush aide 'edited climate papers'
A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.
Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.
The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.
It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.
The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.
The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.
'Uncertainties'
Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.
He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.
The New York Times said he made dozens of changes to reports issued in 2002 and 2003, and many appeared in final versions of major administration climate reports.
They included the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties", and tended to produce an air of doubt about findings most climate experts say are robust, the paper reported.
In another instance, the paper said Mr Cooney added the word "extremely" to the sentence, "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
The newspaper obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal assistance to whistle-blowers.
The project is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that co-ordinates government climate research and which issued the documents that Mr Cooney edited.
-

White House sexed-down climate change reports
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Thursday 9th June 2005 10:36 GMT

Official White House policy documents on climate change were altered by a former oil-industry lobbyist to play down the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, it emerged yesterday.
Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, altered several draft reports in 2002 and 2003, after they had been approved by government scientists, despite having no scientific background himself. Much of his editing made it into final versions of reports.
Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.
Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics. Before going to work at the White House, Cooney was the climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade body that represents the oil industry's interests.
The documents came to light via a non-profit organisation that provides legal assistance to government whistle blowers. The Government Accountability Project is representing Rick Piltz, formerly a senior associate in the office that issued the reports. Piltz resigned from his position in March.
"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote in a document reported by The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
White House officials deny that they are politicising science.
At a press conference this week, President Bush told reporters he believed America is at the forefront of research into climate change. Asked whether he thought climate change was caused by man, he replied: "I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."
Meanwhile, academics from 11 countries, including the US and Britain, distributed an open letter saying: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in the US trying to persuade Bush to commit the US to reducing its greenhouse emissions. The president has called for voluntary measures, but has made no firm promises.

Bush Administration and Climate Science
An editorial in today’s Detroit Free Press has some interesting information related to the Bush Administration’s position on climate science.
“The Bush administration is taking a new tack on global warming, finally conceding that human activities contribute to it. But, unfortunately, it doesn't look as if any of its underlying policies are going to take a similar leap forward. Glen Davies, principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs at the Department of State, told editorial writers last week that "we accept that the science is clear" on human contributions to global warming -- although not on how much of the problem human activity causes or how fast climate change is occurring. The administration's focus clearly remains on alternative technologies, not mandated cutbacks, and Davies specifically cited hydrogen technology.”
This is interesting for several reasons. First, the fact that this information is being conveyed by a “principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs” suggests that it is a trial balloon. And even though John Marburger has made similar comments in the recent past, as science advisor he is not is a policy position. Second, the Bush Administration is likely to take heat on this position from two camps. One is the hard-core contrarians who would like to persist in debate over climate science. They will likely make claims that the science is not yet settled. And the second are those opposed to Bush who also would like the debate to continue in the form of climate science. They will make claims about what the Bush Administatrion “really” believes on climate science. Both of these camps would be good examples of the “scientizers” that I characterized last week.
The Free Press editorial concludes with the following:
“The July G8 event would be an opportune time for the United States to do more than tweak its talking points on global warming. A bolder commitment -- to research, to alternative energy and to the right mix of incentives -- is in order.”

Buena, buena/

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 01:30

You're the man, Straugn.

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 03:37

Bella, bella ....
One, i was noting that you don't necessarily have the cornerpin of wit by attempting to turn around the argument, and if you know anything about Wilde, you'd know that.

Oscar Wilde was a little too, well - WILD - for my taste.

Originally Posted by [NS]Hawkintom
You stated several articles that appeared to support your side of the global warming argument,
and not (as I said) you stand on those "Bibles" and state that you are right.
...that's what i meant by "gibberish".

I'm sorry you couldn't understand it, but it wasn't gibberish. It is exactly what is happening now. You're pulling out your examples of science that appear to support your beliefs and I'm pulling out my examples of science that appear to support my beliefs.

Then we each attack the other person's science and declare our science is superior.

And we leave believing exactly what we believed when we started.

Just like religion! :)

it's kind of crucial to the argument, being time-sensitive and all, that you produce CURRENT posts and not stuff from 10 or 20 years ago. This is a current issue and obviously should be dealt with with the most pertinent and up-to-date factual data.

Well, I have three comments about that.

1. The Kyoto scam was perpetrated 10 years ago. That is why I have presented so much evidence from that time period. My point is to show that in spite of the fact that there were many scientists who disagreed with the Kyoto proposal that it was ramrodded through because of politics. Even to the point of changing the report AFTER the "scientists" had signed off on it, and ignoring the ones who complained that the document presented was not what they signed, nor did they agree with it. (I don't think I had any 20 year ago stuff, except the 1975 article on GLOBAL COOLING which was to illustrate the point that the scientific community has no real idea what it is talking about when it comes to macroclimatology.)

2. We are talking about a billion year old system here. What's 10 years? ;)

3. Ok. I will.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/120704G.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biospencerroy.html

Naomi Oreskes introduces her recent editorial in Science with:

"Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

She then goes on to list all of the official scientific bodies who have produced statements or reports on the reality of global warming. Thus, elements of both "climate change of any amount is bad", and "we need to do something about it" can be gleaned from her first two statements.

Oreskes puts great emphasis on something called the "consensus position" on climate change. While her arguments would seem to support the view that the consensus refers to "serious global warming", a careful reading reveals that it really refers to the rather benign (and even meaningless) conclusion that humans are influencing climate. Climate scientists will tell you that everything influences the climate, so what we really should be asking is: how much are humans influencing the climate, and is there anything we can and should do about it?

Specifically, Oreskes notes a consensus statement from the 2001 report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

Note that "most" and "likely…due to" are qualitative terms that reflect that fact that we really have little knowledge of whether the climate would have changed in substantially the same way without human influence during that 50 year period. There have been only a very few multi-decadal warming and cooling periods in the last 100 years, and it seems to be an overly vindictive view of nature to attribute the cooling periods to natural variability, while blaming the warming periods on humans. Climate models that are now purportedly able to mimic these few warming and cooling periods have so many adjustable parameters, and so few historical events to explain, that the resulting correlations could well be accidental rather than physical.

It is unfortunate, and causes confusion, that "global warming" has taken on a meaning in most peoples' minds that includes elements such as extreme, devastating, calamitous… in other words, bad by definition. The most frequent question I'm asked about climate change is, "Do you believe in global warming"? I am always forced to answer with a question: "What do you mean by global warming?". It is quite plausible that some portion of the 1 deg. F warming in the last 50 to 100 years is due to increasing concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases. But since climate science has still meager understanding of how much of this warming is natural (for instance, the multi-decadal warming trend that ended around 1940), scientists are prone to downplaying uncertainties, and over-emphasizing what they do understand: that increasing levels of carbon dioxide should cause warming. Virtually everyone agrees that more carbon dioxide causes a warming tendency -- the real question is, how will the climate system respond?

The "new ice age" scare of the 1970's should teach us something about statements coming from scientific bodies: that even in scientific reports, scientists sometimes get a little carried away with their theories. This explains in part why scientists' pronouncements are not blindly accepted by the public anymore. Additionally, the most authoritative reports, produced by the IPCC, have been notorious for downplaying or outright ignoring uncertainties in their summaries for policymakers (the only part a congressional staffer is likely to read). Combined with the biased influence of the principals leading the IPCC report process, and the UN's own agenda for future political influence ("Agenda 21"), it is easy to see how the scientific message can get distorted and misused.

In her Science editorial, Ms. Oreskes also makes a curious claim about past research on "climate change": that of 928 climate research paper abstracts published from 1993-2003, none rejected the consensus view on climate change. While I doubt that I've read this many climate change papers, I do have several in my office that specifically state that quantitative estimates of global warming are not possible without further knowledge of certain elements of the climate system (e.g. Renno, Emanuel, and Stone, 1994; Grabowski, 2000) or that current climate models are overly sensitive (e.g. Hu, Oglesby, and Saltzman, 2000). And remember, the consensus view Oreskes refers to is so qualitative and innocuous that few scientists would dispute it anyway.

Furthermore, also unstated by Oreskes is the widespread practice by U.S. funding agencies of only funding research that implicitly accepts the putative global warming paradigm.

"Consensus" among scientists is not definitive, and some have even argued that in science it is meaningless or counterproductive. After all, even scientific "laws" have been disproved in the past (e.g. the Law of Parity in nuclear physics). Global warming is a process that can not be measured in controlled lab experiments, and so in many respects it can not be tested or falsified in the traditional scientific sense. Nevertheless, I'm willing to admit that in the policymakers' realm, scientific consensus might have some limited value. But let's be honest about what that consensus refers to: that "humans influence the climate". Not that "global warming is a serious threat to mankind".

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 03:39

snip
You might want to quote someone not receiving money from MobilExxon.

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 03:57

You might want to quote someone not receiving money from MobilExxon.

You're pulling out your examples of science that appear to support your beliefs and I'm pulling out my examples of science that appear to support my beliefs.

Then we each attack the other person's science and declare our science is superior.

And we leave believing exactly what we believed when we started.

Just like religion! :)

See!!!

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 04:00

Hawkintom']See!!!
No. I don't. You're quoting a scientist with a corporate interest. The rest of us are quoting scientists with a scientific interest. Or can you prove otherwise?

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 04:16

Here's a fun comparo:

Carbon dioxide levels blow sky high
(Tuesday, 30 March 2004)

An increase in global greenhouse gas emissions over the past two years, due almost entirely to the burning of fossil fuels, has been reported by Australian researchers.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1076856.htm

Note how that was reported as FACT. "...due almost entirely to the burning of fossil fuels!"

Now fast forward to one year later...

AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASE
RETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS

March 31, 2005 — A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts.

However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

And you say it is SCIENCE, not BELIEF? Come on now... They have no idea - really. No idea at all.

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 04:32

I found this graph particularly interesting. Especially since it comes from someone who is decidedly "pro-global warming disaster theory."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/fig1.gif

or better copy http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/Fig.1.pdf

The data clearly shows global temperatures to have:

gone up in 1998
fallen in 1999
fallen in 2000
risen in 2001
risen in 2002
fallen in 2003
fallen in 2004

Meanwhile, lets look at CO2 during the same time frame...

Temp up in 1998 CO2 366.63 ppm
Temp dn in 1999 CO2 368.31 ppm (up)
Temp dn in 2000 CO2 369.48 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2001 CO2 371.02 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2002 CO2 373.10 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2003 CO2 375.64 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2004 CO2 377.10 ppm (up) - approximate number on 2004

So maybe I'm missing something, but as the CO2 steadily rises, the global temperature does not seem to corelate with the increase in CO2.

I'd also add that any time you see a "pro-global-warming" site post the numbers, they do parts per million because it looks big! 377 looks huge.

But all the sites that suggest that global warming is a political, rather than scientific, phenomena use actual percentages. Because 0.000377 doesn't look very large.

Both sides spin their religion, er science, for maximum impact.

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 04:42

No. I don't. You're quoting a scientist with a corporate interest. The rest of us are quoting scientists with a scientific interest. Or can you prove otherwise?

I don't have to. You have to prove that my scientist is being dishonest or his figures and facts are false.

Unless you're willing to prove that each of your scientists has no ulterior motives...

Personally I think they do, but I don't ask you to prove otherwise. I try to stick to attacking the science more than the scientists.

Brenchley

15-09-2005, 12:51

Hawkintom']

Oh yeah, and...

C. How do you suppose they get those measurements of temperature from 1000 AD? Hint: The same way they arrive at the global warming phenomena...

There are many ways to determine temperature at various times in the past.

Gift-of-god

15-09-2005, 14:28

Hawkintom']Sorry, but I won't forgive your anecdotal evidence. You want me to change my lifestyle based on your beliefs, the least you can do is google your sources! :)

Don't take my word on Kyoto either. Look it up!

http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html

Here's a list of the scientists that have signed that declaration:

Actually no, it was my initial statement on post #9 of this thread...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9627912&postcount=9

You ask several questions, but ultimately the answer to all of them is "no."

Shoud we stop polluting? No. Should we decrease pollution? Absolutely. But not to the point that it decreases the quality of life for human beings. Especially not based on fantastic (used in the form of: based on fantasy) science.

Should we return to a more natural way of life? No. Not me anyway. You can do whatever you like. That's my libertarian belief system that I don't think you share. See, I won't tell you how to live. Live off the land, move to Siberia and reject modern convenience, I don't care. But don't tell ME how to live.

Most of all though, it is disgraceful that some would use false science, to try and model the world's politics to achieve their goals at the expense of others. That's what Kyoto really is if you honestly research it. They've already achieved a great deal of their goals. People like you believe in global warming as fact. Most people do. But very few of them have actually researched it.

To be fair to you, who has the time to research every last scientific belief out there. We tend to trust the people that claim to be the leaders in the scientific fields. Delegation makes sense. Let those who specialize in a field simplify what they know, generalize it, and feed it to us. It would be a great system if people were honest. But they aren't. They have egos, politics, agendas, and "beliefs" and those get wrapped up in their science. And we end up with bad science sometimes.

Want proof?

How about this:

That was the "scientific belief" of the seventies. The arguments for it sounded a lot like your arguments now, didn't they?

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view...

See why I'm skeptical???

Hawkintom,

Your souces, i.e. the authors of the articles and distributors of the petition, are highly suspect.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 17:07

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5108&method=full

Hockey-Stick" Graph Attacked as Flawed Research
Global Warring: In Climate Debate, The
The Wall Street Journal, Feb.14, 2005
By Antonio Regalado

One of the pillars of the case for man-made global warming is a graph nicknamed the hockey stick. It's a reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers. The stick's shaft shows temperatures oscillating slightly over the ages. Then comes the blade: The mercury swings sharply upward in the 20th century.

The eye-catching image has had a big impact. Since it was published four years ago in a United Nations report, hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers have used the hockey stick in presentations and brochures to make the case that human activity in the industrial era is causing dangerous global warming.

But is the hockey stick true?

The hockey stick was a highlight of a 2001 report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is an advisory body through which the world's scientists try to reach consensus on man-made climate change and provide advice on how to limit it. Because the graph showed only minor temperature changes before the industrial age and then an upward slant -- the hockey-stick shape -- it became an oft-cited argument that human activity was raising temperatures.

The problem, says Mr. McIntyre, is that Dr. Mann's mathematical technique in drawing the graph is prone to generating hockey-stick shapes even when applied to random data. Therefore, he argues, it proves nothing.

Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.

Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong. (???) Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.

Dr. Mann says his busy schedule didn't permit him to respond to "every frivolous note" from nonscientists. The climate-statistics expert, now 39, gained a big career boost from initial publication of the graph in 1998 and 1999. Although others had sought clues to past temperatures, his team was among the first to stitch many disparate records together to span hundreds of years across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

[H]owever... the graph gave little emphasis to what's known as the "medieval warm period," the years around 1000 A.D. when the Norse colonized Greenland. It also seemed to smooth over a cold epoch starting in the 15th century called "the little ice age." Others worried that it relied too heavily on growth rings from a small number of ancient trees, such as California bristlecone pines that can live thousands of years clinging to mountainsides.

When Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick pointed this out to Nature, the journal that first published the hockey-stick graph, Dr. Mann and his two co-authors had to publish a partial correction. In it, they acknowledged one wrong date and the use of some tree-ring data that hadn't been cited in the original paper, and they offered some new details of the statistical methods. The correction, however, stated that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."

Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he says.

Mainstream scientists have also been scrutinizing the hockey stick. One, Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS center, has presented theoretical findings arguing that Dr. Mann's technique could sharply underestimate past temperature swings. Indeed, new research from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump isn't quite so anomalous.

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 17:21

Ok, if we are generating greenhouse gases and they are responsible for the rise in the Earth's surface temperature for the past couple of decades, then please explain this...

Since 1970, the warming rate of the Earth has accelerated to 0.17°C per decade, about three times as fast than the average rate for the past century. However, this comparison (while often made) is somewhat misleading because the actual rate of warming in 1915-1945 was 0.16ºC per decade, essentially the same as for 1970 to the present.

The warming of 0.16°C per decade that occurred in the 1915-1945 period is difficult to ascribe to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its magnitude is the same as the warming of the last three decades, yet the human greenhouse “forcing” was much smaller—approximately 10% of the current levels in 1915 and about 35% by 1945.

The Earth’s temperature has risen and fallen many times in the past when humans had no chance to alter the climate. Given the massive swings in global temperature approaching 10°C from coldest periods to warmest periods, the approximately 0.7°C temperature rise since 1900 is not unusual when viewed over long periods of Earth’s history.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 17:25

Hawkintom,

Your souces, i.e. the authors of the articles and distributors of the petition, are highly suspect.

So are yours...

The problem, says Mr. McIntyre, is that Dr. Mann's mathematical technique in drawing the graph is prone to generating hockey-stick shapes even when applied to random data. Therefore, he argues, it proves nothing.

Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.

Corneliu

15-09-2005, 17:26

Hawkintom you are the man :D

Keep up the good work in telling it as it is.

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 18:34

I don't have to. You have to prove that my scientist is being dishonest or his figures and facts are false.

Unless you're willing to prove that each of your scientists has no ulterior motives...

Personally I think they do, but I don't ask you to prove otherwise. I try to stick to attacking the science more than the scientists.
Unacceptable. How can you possibly say that this scientist, the one which you quote most often in the past couple of pages, who works for a group receiving large funds from ExxonMobil is not compromised? I'll defend anyone I quoted, if you feel like doing some research on them. I looked up your guy and I'm not impressed. If you're going to talk science, then talk it. But stop quoting a man who is working with the motive to prove global warming is not happening so that an oil company can rake in more profit.

The Edd

15-09-2005, 20:06

For the stubborn peeps who refuse to think that there's any warming happening at all (and I bet there's a few left), I present a Newscientist article from a few weeks' ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18725134.400
I am a subscriber, but can't remember my username and password, so can't quote the text that's missing. Basically though, further examination of the data from the satellites and balloons has shown that they're b0rked. And of course, proper scientific method being what it is, means that they cannot be used in an argument anymore. Nyah.

Frankly, I was getting quite fond of, y'know, living on the planet and stuff. Being eradicated by some very large seas, or starving to death because of crops and animals being washed away (or otherwise ruined), or being fried to a crisp in the sunburn... they weren't on my "To Do" list.

But this has been entertaining reading.

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 23:08

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 23:17

Unacceptable. How can you possibly say that this scientist, the one which you quote most often in the past couple of pages, who works for a group receiving large funds from ExxonMobil is not compromised? I'll defend anyone I quoted, if you feel like doing some research on them. I looked up your guy and I'm not impressed. If you're going to talk science, then talk it. But stop quoting a man who is working with the motive to prove global warming is not happening so that an oil company can rake in more profit.

You're shooting behind a moving target my friend, which means you're missing. You are criticizing ONE of my sources. I've posted several more since then and asked some honest questions which everyone is avoiding. (The Earth’s temperature appears to have risen and fallen many times in the past when humans had no chance to alter the climate. How do we explain these changes when mankind was not influencing the climate significantly?)

Your sources are biased too. They have to be, this whole mess is a joke and anyone with any honesty and sense would know that we do NOT know what the temperatures were 1000 years ago, and we do NOT know what a normal fluctuation in temperatures is for this planet as we have NOT had any measurements of these temperatures for longer than a hundred or so years.

Dr. Mann gained a big career boost from the initial publication of his hockey stick graph in 1998 and 1999. His team was among the first to stitch many disparate records together to span hundreds of years across the entire Northern Hemisphere. You wanna bet that wasn't motivation. Suddenly he is a known scientists. Invited to conventions. Flown to meetings. Quoted and perhaps invited on tv shows. Big man on campus with tenure insured and making a name for himself in academia.

Keep up, we're not slowing down for the slow kids on this one. I realize there are no rules here, and you can play by whatever you like. But I'm not going to slow down to defend my sources. If you can attack their SCIENCE, feel free. But attacking their motives is going to be ignored by me. I think your scientists are all motivated by their beliefs and you think mine are motivated by their beliefs. That cancels out. As I said all along, this is religion - not science. One side lines up their people and their evidence and the other side lines up opposing evidence. In the end, you'll probably walk away believing what you started.

I'm playing for the casual onlooker who came into this thread thinking, "How could someone possibly argue against global warming, we've known about that forever?" We haven't. In the seventies it was global cooling we were worried about and the "CONSENSUS" was that the Earth was headed for massive starvation because we were going to lose tons of crops because of the lower rainfalls... etc.

Now the new boss is the same as the old boss, except just the opposite. The climate is warming by less than a degree Celsius and the scientists are telling us that the sky is falling. Run Chicken Little, run!

[NS]Hawkintom

15-09-2005, 23:21

For the stubborn peeps who refuse to think that there's any warming happening at all (and I bet there's a few left), I present a Newscientist article from a few weeks' ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18725134.400

Oh, the climate has warmed in the last hundred years. That's not the issue.

The issues are:

1. Are we causing it?
2. Might this be a normal fluctuation?
3. Can we do anything about it?
4. Should we do anything about it?
5. Would Kyoto accomplish the goals, or just make people "feel good about having done something?"
6. Does it matter at all?

Frankly, I was getting quite fond of, y'know, living on the planet and stuff. Being eradicated by some very large seas, or starving to death because of crops and animals being washed away (or otherwise ruined), or being fried to a crisp in the sunburn... they weren't on my "To Do" list.

I have great news for you. The planet will still be here, and doing just fine (unless someone nukes the place) for you, your children and grandchildren.

You'll see.

Laerod

15-09-2005, 23:31

Hawkintom']I have great news for you. The planet will still be here, and doing just fine (unless someone nukes the place) for you, your children and grandchildren.

You'll see.And what if you turn out to be wrong?

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 23:37

Hawkintom']You're shooting behind a moving target my friend, which means you're missing. You are criticizing ONE of my sources. I've posted several more since then and asked some honest questions which everyone is avoiding. (The Earth’s temperature appears to have risen and fallen many times in the past when humans had no chance to alter the climate. How do we explain these changes when mankind was not influencing the climate significantly?)

Your sources are biased too. They have to be, this whole mess is a joke and anyone with any honesty and sense would know that we do NOT know what the temperatures were 1000 years ago, and we do NOT know what a normal fluctuation in temperatures is for this planet as we have NOT had any measurements of these temperatures for longer than a hundred or so years.

Dr. Mann gained a big career boost from the initial publication of his hockey stick graph in 1998 and 1999. His team was among the first to stitch many disparate records together to span hundreds of years across the entire Northern Hemisphere. You wanna bet that wasn't motivation. Suddenly he is a known scientists. Invited to conventions. Flown to meetings. Quoted and perhaps invited on tv shows. Big man on campus with tenure insured and making a name for himself in academia.

Keep up, we're not slowing down for the slow kids on this one. I realize there are no rules here, and you can play by whatever you like. But I'm not going to slow down to defend my sources. If you can attack their SCIENCE, feel free. But attacking their motives is going to be ignored by me. I think your scientists are all motivated by their beliefs and you think mine are motivated by their beliefs. That cancels out. As I said all along, this is religion - not science. One side lines up their people and their evidence and the other side lines up opposing evidence. In the end, you'll probably walk away believing what you started.

I'm playing for the casual onlooker who came into this thread thinking, "How could someone possibly argue against global warming, we've known about that forever?" We haven't. In the seventies it was global cooling we were worried about and the "CONSENSUS" was that the Earth was headed for massive starvation because we were going to lose tons of crops because of the lower rainfalls... etc.

Now the new boss is the same as the old boss, except just the opposite. The climate is warming by less than a degree Celsius and the scientists are telling us that the sky is falling. Run Chicken Little, run!
You don't seem to understand what global warming is in the first place, judging by this post. Global warming does not mean its time to put the sun block on. Global warming is causing ERRATIC weather patterns. You also don't seem to understand that a degree or two in your living room and a degree or two when we are talking about global temperature are two incredibly different things. You also point out that global temperature has changed in the past, so how could we possibly claim that a changing global temperature is our fault? The ideas behind this reasoning is too staggeringly ignorant for me to even begin to fathom. It leads me again to believe that you understand little or are ignorant of years of global climate research.
I chose one source you put down, I discredited him. Maybe I'll choose another, I'm not sure if it's worth it with you. Why keep arguing with someone who sidesteps arguments? Beyond that, I see little that you've written that hasn't been addressed by actual scientists concerned with actual science. Saying that a scientist is after world renown and that would cause him to make deliberately faulty arguments, is flawed logic. When a scientist is discredited or shown to use sloppy work to come up with results just for a paycheck, is worse off than having no renown at all. I came up with a motive for your scientist that has both the funds to supply the money with that scientist for the fucked up "research" he does and the financial motive for wanting a particular result. Running around the argument does not support your case. Asking me to look up the other questionable sources one by one as you go find more and as you show yourself to be cemented in whatever you believe to be true, would be a futile chase for me to pursue.

Bushanomics

15-09-2005, 23:40

I'm bush like. The president said that global warming does not exist the first day of office. The president is the smartest man in the world. Global warming was invinted by the Laberals to try to get votes and the last two elections showed that didnt work. Its great when you brother is governor of the state in question. He he he he he he he.

Laerod

15-09-2005, 23:42

Desperate Measures

15-09-2005, 23:51

According to SEPP associate Candace Crandall, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing." [11] However, people who have examined the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that:

The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists" is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.
The Heidelberg Appeal actually does not say anything about global warming.
Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declarations are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
Many of the signers of the Oregon Petition are also non-scientists or lack relevant scientific backgrounds

Such an examination has been undertaken by Danish Broadcasting Company (DR1) journalist, Øjvind Hesselager (2). In late 1997 he attempted to contact every signatory (82 at the time) to the "Leipzig Declaration." Of 33 European signatories:

there were four he was unable to locate
twelve denied having signed, and of these, some had not even heard of the "Leipzig Declaration"
many signatories were not qualified in fields even remotely related to climate research. They included medical doctors, e.g., H. Metzner; nuclear scientists, e.g., M.J. Higatsberger; and one expert on flying insects, i.e., V. Svidersky
some signatories had financial ties to the German coal industry or the Government of Kuwait (R. Balling and P. Michaels).

Of the present signatories:

twenty-five are TV-meteorologists (here in Denmark, being a TV-meteorologist does not imply any in-depth knowledge of climate research)
nine do not appear, from the information provided in the published list (2), to be involved in relevant research
fourteen claim the title "Professor," but the list gives no indication of their academic speciality or institutional affiliation
forty-two are listed either as an oceanographer, meteorologist, climatologist, or geophysicist or as the employee of an institution involved with climate research. However, in only a minority of cases is it indicated by the list as currently published (1) whether these individuals are actually doing climate research.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

Straughn

16-09-2005, 03:34

Keeping in the spirit of new information, as i'd posted before ...

*ahem*

Using satellite observations to investigate 'greening' trends across Canada and Alaska
Recent research results from scientists at the Woods Hole Research Center suggest that 'greening' has begun to decline in the high latitude forested areas of North America. The work, which represents an important advance by incorporating the full extent of the latest satellite observational record to document unique vegetation responses to climatic warming, and then projecting those trends forward in time, is now being extended to circumpolar forests. The research will be highlighted in upcoming issues of Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS) and in Geophysical Research Letters.

Generally, satellite observations of plant growth across the high latitudes of North America -- in Canada and Alaska -- indicate that tundra vegetation experienced an increase in both peak photosynthesis and growing season length, whereas forests experienced a decline in photosynthetic activity between 1981 and 2003. Climatic warming occurred across the entire region, but the change in the forest response indicates that long-term changes may not be predictable from initial, short-term observations. Fire disturbance has also increased with the warming but does not explain the decline in forest photosynthetic activity.
According to Scott Goetz, a senior scientist with the Center, "We believe this is some of the first evidence that high latitude forests may be in decline following an initial growth spurt associated with warming. The reasons for this decline are not certain, but related work points to increased drying as a likely cause. The observed warming and drying are consistent with climate model predictions for the region."
More specifically, Center researchers analyzed trends in a time series of photosynthetic activity across boreal North America over 22 years, from 1981 to 2003. Nearly 15 percent of the region displayed significant trends, of which just over half involved temperature-related increases in growing season, length and photosynthetic intensity, mostly in tundra. In contrast, forest areas unaffected by fire during the study period declined in photosynthetic activity and showed no systematic change in growing season length. Stochastic (random) changes across the time series were predominantly associated with a frequent and increasing fire regime. These trends have implications for the direction of feedbacks to the climate system and emphasize the importance of longer-term synoptic observations of arctic and boreal biomes.
According to Andrew Bunn, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center, "These studies are important because they describe how vast areas of forest are changing and how those changes are related to climate. They are supported by a variety of field studies from other researchers that show rapid changes in vegetation in response to climate variability."
Tundra Fire and Vegetation Change along a Hillslope on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, U.S.A
Issn: 1523-0430 Journal: Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research Volume: 36 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-10
Authors: Racine, Charles, Jandt, Randi, Meyers, Cynthia, Dennis, John
DOI: 10.1043/1523-0430(2004)036<0001:TFAVCA>2.0.CO;2
ABSTRACT
A 1977 tundra fire burned a hillslope where prefire soils and vegetation ranged from poorly drained moist tussock-shrub tundra on the lower slopes to well-drained dwarf shrub tundra on the back slope and very poorly drained wet sedge meadow on the flat crest. We sampled the vegetation on this slope before the fire and at 8 sites following the fire at irregular intervals from 1 yr to 25 yr. During the first decade after the fire, short-term recovery was dominated by bryophytes, sedges, and grasses from both regrowing sedge tussocks and seedlings. However, during the second and third decade, and by 24 yr after the fire, evergreen (Ledum palustre) and deciduous shrubs (mainly Salix pulchra willow) expanded dramatically so that shrub cover was generally higher than before the fire. Labrador tea has increased by vegetative means on the poorly drained lowest 3 tussock-shrub tundra sites. Upslope on the better-drained and more severely burned tussock-shrub and dwarf shrub tundra sites, willows became established from seed mainly during the first 10 yr after the fire and, based on their relatively large size (0.5–1 m tall) and cover, have grown rapidly during the past 15 to 20 yr. There has been very little or no recovery of Sphagnum moss and fruticose lichens after 24 yr at any site, except for Sphagnum moss in the wet meadow site. The permafrost active layer thickness has diminished to prefire levels at the lower slope tussock-shrub tundra sites but is much greater or degraded completely on the steeper slope, corresponding with the distribution of willow shrub colonization. These changes in tundra vegetation and permafrost following fire suggest that such fires could accelerate the predicted effects of climate warming on ecosystems in the Arctic.

Straughn

16-09-2005, 03:36

And ...

*ahem*

Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
ByAmanda Gardner HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Sept. 15 (HealthDay News) -- An increase in the ferocity of hurricanes around the globe over the last 35 years may be attributable to global warming, a new report states.
The study, which appears in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Science, is perhaps one of the strongest scientific statements yet on a connection between hurricane activity and global warming.
"I'm heading towards being a little less cautious," study lead author Peter J. Webster, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said at a news conference Wednesday. "I think [rising] sea surface temperature is a global-warming effect and I think the change in [hurricane] intensity, which is a universal thing, is following sea surface temperature."
Webster was referring to a demonstrated increase in the sea surface temperature (SST) of about half a degree centigrade since 1970. Scientists have hypothesized that higher sea surface temperatures result in greater hurricane intensity.
Not everyone is convinced by the new findings, however.
"The question is, is [the increase in intensity] real?" said Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Hurricane Center in Miami. "Are we seeing a big increase the last 15 years or is it an artifact of the data? I'm afraid it's probably not a real change that's going on."
Even one of Webster's co-authors, Greg Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., hedged his bets a little. "There is a reasonable chance that this is consistent with global change but one can never say for sure with this amount of data," he said.
All of which reflects the ongoing debate in the scientific community as to whether changes in hurricane tempers are due to natural variability or to the effects of global warming.
The Science article comes as U.S. rescue efforts continue in the Gulf Coast areas devastated by Katrina, a category 5 hurricane that battered parts of Louisiana -- most notably New Orleans -- and Mississippi and Alabama earlier this month. The authors of the study said the fury of Katrina on its own, however, cannot specifically be pinned on global warming.
"Katrina was one of those we've seen increasing in intensity but we can't say Katrina by itself was part of this factor," Holland said. "There is a substantial amount of natural variability."
The study authors analyzed the frequency, duration and intensity (maximum wind speed) of hurricanes over the past 35 years in the five major ocean basins. The time period 1970 to 2005 was chosen because equivalent data was available for all years.
The number and frequency of hurricanes grew until 1995, then fell after that, leaving the overall rate steady.
The largest increases in intensity occurred in the North Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans, while the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic.
"In all basins including the Atlantic, category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased enormously, almost by a factor of two," Webster said. "It's not too far from the imagination to be able to ascribe changes in hurricane intensity to SST [sea surface temperatures]."
Hurricanes are rated on a scale of one to five, based on the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale. A category 1 storm has winds ranging from 74 to 95 mph; a category 5 hurricane has winds exceeding 155 mph.
The number of category 1 hurricanes remained about the same, the study found, while the most severe hurricanes have not become any more intense.
Landsea contested some of the data and some of the findings.
"At the start of the study, in 1970, there was no way to even estimate what the winds were of hurricanes over open oceans," he said.
And information on the Atlantic, where planes have been flying since the 1960s, should be the most reliable and that's showing the smallest change of all six ocean basins, he pointed out.
Also, Landsea said, it makes no sense that there would be more category 4 and 5 storms yet no change in peak winds. "Other studies suggest that if global warming is going to have an impact, that the strongest hurricanes will get even stronger and we're not seeing that," he said.
According to Landsea, one of the best studies on what might happen in the future suggests that, in 100 years, a doubling of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and a 3 to 4 degree warming of the ocean temperature would cause an increase in winds and overall rainfall on the order of only 5 percent.
"The global warming impacts are so tiny today that they can't be measured although they might be measured in 100 years," Landsea said. "Compared to the natural swings of hurricane activity and compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise."
But the study authors dispute such thinking.
"We do see this trend in SST that's relentlessly rising and the hurricane intensity that's relentlessly rising. So, with some confidence, we can say that these two things are connected and there's probably a substantial contribution from greenhouse warming and not just a natural variability," said Judith Curry, another co-author and chairwoman of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
"Even with imperfect data and some uncertainty, it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data set to give you a long-term trend."
Webster added: "The National Weather Service did one heck of a job in forecasting Katrina and, with all the problems that we have with the response of FEMA and so on, we sometimes forget we do something with hurricanes very well. There was an enormous warning given to the region."

[NS]Hawkintom

16-09-2005, 03:47

You don't seem to understand what global warming is in the first place, judging by this post. Global warming does not mean its time to put the sun block on. Global warming is causing ERRATIC weather patterns.

Actually you bring up an interesting point. What exactly do you believe that "global warming" is going to do to the Earth, and more importantly to those of us living here?

What specifically will global warming to do us?

You also don't seem to understand that a degree or two in your living room and a degree or two when we are talking about global temperature are two incredibly different things.

This is that game again where you attack me, put words in my mouth, and ignore the science I have presented that supports my statements. I'll repeat my position here again just for clarity. Scientists who claim that we are causing global warming through human activity and suggest that said global warming will produce catastrophic effects on mankind are talking out their butts. They don't know.

I know this is hard for some folks to understand. How can these very educated, intelligent people be so wrong? The answer is really simple if you step back from the issue and look at human beings. How many times have you known someone, or perhaps even yourself, to get so involved in an issue that you get bogged down in the details and overlook the big picture?

They even have a saying for it... "You can't see the forest for the trees."

Intelligent people have made a decision. They have decided to believe that mankind is powerful enough to significantly effect the climate of this planet by our actions. Once they accept that belief, then they work very hard at applying their intelligence to prove that belief.

You also point out that global temperature has changed in the past, so how could we possibly claim that a changing global temperature is our fault? The ideas behind this reasoning is too staggeringly ignorant for me to even begin to fathom. It leads me again to believe that you understand little or are ignorant of years of global climate research.

I'm sure you realize this, but in case someone skimming it didn't notice... Desperate Measures just took the question I asked and declared it ignorant, then skipped over it without answering it.

Why would he/she do that?

Perhaps if I ask again nicely you will explain it for this staggeringly ignorant poster? PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE, would you stoop down beneath yourself and tell me why the temperature of the planet rose at the same rate it is rising now, in the early 1900's when we were putting only 10-35% the amount of "greenhouse gases" into the climate?

I'll give you a hint. You don't know. The scientists don't know. And if they don't know that, then they don't know why they are rising now either.

"Global Warming" (defined as the warming of the Earth's temperature by mankind's activities which will result in terrible consequences for the ecology and humanity) is a BELIEF. It is not science.

It ignores the Sun's input into the system entirely. All of the models ALWAYS predict much higher temperature rise than we actually see. ALL of them- ALWAYS.

I chose one source you put down, I discredited him.

No you didn't. You QUESTIONED him. You offered nothing to refute his science.

Maybe I'll choose another, I'm not sure if it's worth it with you. Why keep arguing with someone who sidesteps arguments?

Which argument did I sidestep? Maybe you were confused about one of YOUR posts?

Beyond that, I see little that you've written that hasn't been addressed by actual scientists concerned with actual science. Saying that a scientist is after world renown and that would cause him to make deliberately faulty arguments, is flawed logic.

PLEASE show me the flaw in the logic.

And let me see if I understand correctly. You say one of my sources, who has a PhD in Meteorology, is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Also, in the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is also the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change is discredited because you believe he is biased towards the oil companies. So you are saying that he has thrown away ALL OF THOSE CREDENTIALS because he believes that global warming (as defined above) is a crock and is willing to work for the oil companies to show that.

But that logic cannot be turned around on your guy because he is a scientist.

Are you actually familiar with LOGIC?

When a scientist is discredited or shown to use sloppy work to come up with results just for a paycheck, is worse off than having no renown at all.

Who did this? :confused:

I came up with a motive for your scientist that has both the funds to supply the money with that scientist for the fucked up "research" he does

Hmm, so if I'm understanding you correctly, his research is invalid in your eyes because it reaches the opposite conclusion of what you believe?

and the financial motive for wanting a particular result. Running around the argument does not support your case. Asking me to look up the other questionable sources one by one as you go find more and as you show yourself to be cemented in whatever you believe to be true, would be a futile chase for me to pursue.

I'm afraid you are mistaken or lying. I did not "ask you to look up the other 'questionable' sources." Re-read it my friend. The only thing I asked you to do (for once!) was refute the SCIENCE of what I have written or answer my questions. You haven't even TRIED to do that. You just attack sources and attack me.

Just out of curiousity, does it even OCCUR to you that the sentence you wrote above, "as you show yourself to be cemented in whatever you believe to be true" applies to you as well?

Looking forward to seeing if you want to debate any of the science of this. I'll be out researching more.

Hey, while I'm here - let me put an open question out there to anyone on EITHER SIDE of the argument. I like to think for myself. One thing I've noticed on this global warming thing is that almost universally, the temperatures are shown as a variation from the "normal temperatures."

"Normal temperatures" seem to be 1951-1980 for most of the "global warming" believers. That gives them the graphs that are closest to what they are looking for, but I've seen other graphs where the norm was set from 1800-1980 that appear to make the effect less pronounced.

My question is: Does anyone have a source for the ACTUAL data? In other words, instead of the temperature compared to an arbitrarily chosen MEAN, can I see the data in actual degrees C or F? TIA if anyone can help with that.

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 04:59

Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming [/B]

Oh brother. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm going to have to sit and think about where to start to rip this thing apart.

[NS]Hawkintom

16-09-2005, 18:15

Oh brother. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm going to have to sit and think about where to start to rip this thing apart.

How can you say that? It is OBVIOUS that the global warming is taking place and it is OBVIOUS that the storms are becoming more severe (Look at New Orleans for evolution's sake!) THEREFORE it must be the global warming that is causing the storms to be more severe.

Now some people may step forward and show research that indicates the Earth's climate has been in a relatively mild zone for the past couple of centuries and that we should expect more extreme weather in the near future as part of a "natural trend," but those people are wrong because the global warming theory is correct and has been proven time and time again.

:p

Just kidding. I'm off to find more research that shows that "global warming" (as per my definition earlier) is nothing more than fantasy.

[NS]Hawkintom

16-09-2005, 18:28

*ahem*

Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
ByAmanda Gardner HealthDay Reporter

Not everyone is convinced by the new findings, however.
"The question is, is [the increase in intensity] real?" said Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Hurricane Center in Miami. "Are we seeing a big increase the last 15 years or is it an artifact of the data? I'm afraid it's probably not a real change that's going on."

Even one of Webster's co-authors, Greg Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., hedged his bets a little. "There is a reasonable chance that this is consistent with global change but one can never say for sure with this amount of data," he said.

All of which reflects the ongoing debate in the scientific community as to whether changes in hurricane tempers are due to natural variability or to the effects of global warming.

"Katrina was one of those we've seen increasing in intensity but we can't say Katrina by itself was part of this factor," Holland said. "There is a substantial amount of natural variability."

The study authors analyzed the frequency, duration and intensity (maximum wind speed) of hurricanes over the past 35 years in the five major ocean basins. The time period 1970 to 2005 was chosen because equivalent data was available for all years.

The number and frequency of hurricanes grew until 1995, then fell after that, leaving the overall rate steady.

Also, Landsea said, it makes no sense that there would be more category 4 and 5 storms yet no change in peak winds. "Other studies suggest that if global warming is going to have an impact, that the strongest hurricanes will get even stronger and we're not seeing that," he said.

According to Landsea, one of the best studies on what might happen in the future suggests that, in 100 years, a doubling of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and a 3 to 4 degree warming of the ocean temperature would cause an increase in winds and overall rainfall on the order of only 5 percent.

"The global warming impacts are so tiny today that they can't be measured although they might be measured in 100 years," Landsea said. "Compared to the natural swings of hurricane activity and compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise."

"Even with imperfect data and some uncertainty, it's hard to imagine what kind of errors might be in the data set to give you a long-term trend."

*ahem*

Straughn, good to have you arguing on our side! ;)

Corneliu

16-09-2005, 20:26

Hawkintom']*ahem*

Straughn, good to have you arguing on our side! ;)

Thanks Hawkintom!

My dad sent me this article regarding Katrina and Global Warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050915a.html

Doesn't prove one way or the other but a convincing case can be made thanks to the hurricanes of the past that were MORE INTENSIVE than Katrina was.

Desperate Measures

16-09-2005, 21:25

To NS Hawkingtom:
Let me start by saying, I'm not a scientist but when I look at a scientific study, I wonder to myself, "Who is saying this? Why is he saying it?" Something you should do yourself. Why, if I'm not a scientist, would I even attempt to begin to discredit a scientist's science when I've already discredited the scientist himself and the organization he works for? Please, be logical.

I'm not going to tell you what Global Warming will do to us. Pointless talking about that with you. But here, take a look at what is happening: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

Your arguments are opinion based. "Intelligent people have made a decision. They have decided to believe that mankind is powerful enough to significantly effect the climate of this planet by our actions. Once they accept that belief, then they work very hard at applying their intelligence to prove that belief." This is based on nothing but what you happen to be thinking off the top of your head.

"So you are saying that he has thrown away ALL OF THOSE CREDENTIALS because he believes that global warming (as defined above) is a crock and is willing to work for the oil companies to show that." What happens when his funding runs out when he finds results that displease the oil company? Please, enlighten me.

And on Katrina: "Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming - and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.

Yet this is not the right way to frame the question. As we have also pointed out in previous posts, we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#more-181
Their mission statement:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

Desperate Measures

16-09-2005, 21:36

Ways in which estimated temperature can be estimated pre-20th century:
aking the planet's temperature

To get an accurate picture of how warm the Earth is, you need measurements from all over because the whole planet does not heat up at the same rate. In fact, some parts might even cool down while the world as a whole heats up. Also, many temperature readings are needed over time to develop an accurate long-term picture. In order to develop a global temperature history, researchers have had to travel to the farthest corners of the Earth, and come up with ways to "go back in time".

Some sources of past temperature data:

Historical records – Includes sources like ship's logs, farmer's diaries and newspaper articles. When carefully evaluated these can provide can provide both quantitative and qualitative data.
Personal accounts and oral histories – Useful information can be gathered especially from the older generations of indigenous people who have always relied on nature for their survival, and so are particularly observant of changes over the past decades.
Direct (e.g. thermometer) measurements – Only go back around 300 years, and are very sparse until about 150 years ago. Also, differences in thermometer types and other variables have to be taken into account.
Data collected by balloon and satellite – Very useful, but only available since 1979.
Tree ring thickness – Width and density varies depending on growing conditions.
Ocean and lake sediments – Billions of tons of sediments accumulate each year. The tiny preserved fossils and chemicals in layers of sediment can be used interpret past climate.
Coral skeletons – The water temperature that the coral grew in can be determined from trace metals, oxygen and the isotopes of oxygen contained in its skeleton.
Fossil pollen – Each plant has uniquely shaped pollen. Knowing what plants were growing at a particular time in the fossil record lets scientists make inferences about what the climate was like at the time.
Ice cores – Over the centuries snow falling on high mountains and the polar ice caps packs down and becomes solid ice. Dust and air bubbles trapped in this ice provide valuable climate data. For example, the air trapped in the ice serves as a record of carbon dioxide concentrations across the millennia.
Observed melting – Rates of glacial retreat, permafrost thaw, shrinking polar ice caps and reduction in Arctic sea ice are indicators of both short and long term climate change.

The important thing is not to look at any one source of data independently, but instead to take them together. This produces a scientifically compelling picture of a warming world that matches with the corresponding increase in greenhouse gasses. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/climate_research

Thuriliacayo

16-09-2005, 21:44

It warms in summer, and cools in winter.

So,.. yes,.. there is a global warming, though spotty.

Desperate Measures

16-09-2005, 21:48

It warms in summer, and cools in winter.

So,.. yes,.. there is a global warming, though spotty.
Were you there for August?? It warmed up something fierce!

Straughn

16-09-2005, 22:02

Oh brother. This is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm going to have to sit and think about where to start to rip this thing apart.
Oh sister, i'm just a-waiting for you and your impeccable credentials and refined sense of logic and discourse to tear this apart.
Yep, just a-waiting.
And a-waiting.
And ... hey wait a minute ... maybe i shouldn't espouse the kind of ignorance i'd prefer not to see erupt so often in so many posts like yours - blanket statements relying on personal beliefs and hopes that no one will squish them for what they are.
----
Cute, btw, how i'm arguing "for your side". I've been arguing for a while to "put up or shut up", and so far Hawkintom is close but really hung up on the fallibility of any study.
If you think i'm on your side, feel free to cite the rest of my posts on this matter - that'd be fair and balanced/

Straughn

16-09-2005, 22:03

Thanks Hawkintom!

My dad sent me this article regarding Katrina and Global Warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050915a.html

Doesn't prove one way or the other but a convincing case can be made thanks to the hurricanes of the past that were MORE INTENSIVE than Katrina was.
Uhm, isn't he responding to me? Corny are you having identity issues?
Here, check your underwear. Easy way to find out.
;)

Straughn

16-09-2005, 22:05

Well, more again on the topic.

*ahem*

Scientists link warmer weather to beetle outbreak
The bugs are a normal part of the forest cycle, but recent high temperatures encouraged growth

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: September 11, 2005
Last Modified: September 11, 2005 at 08:03 AM

HOMER -- When Scott Brandt-Ericksen read of Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent
trip to Alaska and her alarm over bark beetles migrating north due to global
warming, he burst out laughing. Then he got annoyed.

"While global warming may be an issue, the spruce bark beetle kill problem
has not been tied to global warming," he wrote in a letter to the Daily
News. "It is insulting and a disservice to the public to have the AP and the
Daily News peddling such malarkey as if it were scientific fact."

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough attorney elaborated in a later interview: "Is
it an urban legend, or is there any scientific basis? That's one of my pet
peeves, when people have repeated speculation enough for it to be considered
fact."

Indeed, in the decade that it took for the spruce bark beetle epidemic here
to reach unprecedented proportions, killing four million acres of forest in
Southcentral Alaska, the notion that higher temperatures were to blame
evolved from a tentative hypothesis to an article of accepted wisdom. By
2002, The New York Times said the dead forests may be "one of the world's
most visible monuments to climate change."

Brandt-Ericksen was not alone in wondering whether circumstantial evidence
was being misused for political purposes. The forests had been allowed to
grow old and vulnerable, many people said. Have scientists really been able
to prove a link between warmer temperatures and the miles of gray, lifeless
forests?

In fact, they say, they have.

Through a combination of field sampling in buggy forests, computer analysis
of tree growth rings and historical fire data, and careful examination of
competing theories, forest scientists have reached a consensus that the
woods of the Kenai Peninsula would not have been so thoroughly wiped out
without an increase in the local summer average temperatures of some 2.5
degrees Fahrenheit since 1987.

"The difficulty was you had a natural coexistent system between trees and
bugs, and outbreaks had happened many times in the past," said Glenn Juday,
a professor of forest ecology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "So
what made this different?"

Finding the answer involved a classic piece of scientific sleuthing. But the
quiet background research was obscured for a while by noisier foreground
political battles fought over mankind's supposed role in bringing on the
epidemic, either through mismanagement of the forests or pollution of the
earth's atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

For residents of the Kenai Peninsula, the loss of their forests came with
little warning. When the spruce bark beetles first hit in the late 1980s,
entomologists predicted the outbreaks would be relatively short-lived,
killing off the oldest trees. Homeowners were instructed in defensive
techniques such as stripping bark off red-needled spruce and felling trap
trees. These efforts proved useless in the face of the coming beetle hordes,
which attacked healthy young trees and flew so thick they left a brown tide
line on the shores of Cook Inlet.

Today, beetle activity has abated because there are few mature trees left to
attack. The last red-needle outbreaks on the Kenai could be seen this summer
in the high country south of Turnagain Pass. The area is traditionally one
of the last to lose snow in spring, but earlier melting in recent years may
have made them vulnerable, entomologists say. With most of the Kenai's old
forests now dead and rotting, the real beetle action lately has been to the
west, in the Iliamna Lake and Kuskokwim River areas. New outbreaks have also
been seen closer to Anchorage, in the Indian and Bird Creek valleys.

One thing was clear from the start: the beetles hadn't "migrated north,
drawn by higher temperatures," as The Associated Press account of Sen.
Clinton's visit put it. The beetles have always been part of the Kenai
Peninsula forests, serving an ecological role in killing off small stands of
ripe, older trees.

A taciturn ecologist for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge who calls
himself a "forest detective" was the first scientist to begin probing the
links between the spreading beetle outbreak and warmer temperatures. Ed
Berg, a former philosophy student and carpenter, started with circumstantial
evidence — a string of warmer-than-average summers beginning in 1987.

"We had summer temperature records in Homer going back to 1932," he said. "I
perceived this was an unusually long run of warm summers."

Studies had shown that spruce beetle hot spots usually stop spreading
because of downturns in temperature. Two consecutive cold winters freeze the
beetle larvae buried under the spruce bark, or a wet, cool summer
discourages the emergence and flight to new trees. But this time there was
no cooling-off period to stop the beetles.

Berg found that past drought periods had triggered short beetle outbreaks,
presumably by stressing the spruce. He assembled evidence of current
drought. What's more, in unusually warm weather like the Kenai was getting,
the two-year life cycle of the insect could be cut to one year, effectively
doubling the population of beetles.

One such hot year was 1993. That was the summer Berg started going into the
woods to take core samples of trees. In areas where beetles had killed trees
in the past, he found evidence in tree rings of a burst of growth in young
spruce once the older canopy thinned. He was then able to look elsewhere to
find and date earlier outbreaks.

His conclusion: Beetles were a natural recycling agent on the Kenai
Peninsula, where the coastal climate meant few lightning-started wildfires.
Earlier outbreaks, some of them extensive, had always eventually shut down.
This kind of wholesale forest destruction was unprecedented.

"That was a key — that earlier events had been low-frequency and spatially
separated," said UAF professor Juday, who carried Berg's work into the
broader conversation about changes in the Arctic.

Some skeptics remained. Jerry Boughton, a forest health specialist with the
U.S. Forest Service, stressed that the woods were filled with aging trees
susceptible to bug attacks. For a time, this became the preferred
explanation for those who wanted to see more active management, including
logging, of the forests.

---

As a Voice of the Times editorial put it in 2001: "Though a New York Times
reporter once claimed that the Chugach National Forest beetle explosion was
caused by global warming, the experts seem to feel zealous fire suppression
and logging bans caused the trees to grow old, densely spaced and
susceptible to insect attack."

The problem with that hypothesis, said Juday, is that the data don't back it
up. The aging forest contributed to the problem, he said. But there was no
evidence that the forests hadn't been just as old and vulnerable during
outbreaks 200 years ago.

Logging was never a factor in keeping Kenai Peninsula forests thinned, and
the policy of suppressing all fires lasted only two decades, beginning
around 1960, not long enough to have a major effect on the age of the trees,
Juday said. Human management is a useful explanation for forest insect
problems in the Rocky Mountain West, he said. But it didn't apply here.

Others suggested sloppy clearing practices by more recent loggers were to
blame. Scientists responded that the epidemic may have gotten a boost from
trees left on the ground after clearing of transmission lines but still
wouldn't have grown to such proportions without the higher temperatures.

The final word on the beetles and climate change may have been heard last
year, in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment published by an
inter-governmental forum, the Arctic Council. It was the work of 300
scientists from 18 countries. Juday, who wrote the chapter on forest health,
said it was one of the most thoroughly peer-reviewed pieces he's written. He
said he sifted through other explanations — the "decadent forest," the
genetic vulnerability of the hybrid Lutz spruce in the area — before
concluding that warming temperatures were the major cause.

"We've got a pretty good tentative conclusion now. But science can only do
so much," said Juday. "You develop a hypothesis, you make observations, you
try all the reasonable explanations and knock some of them down and then see
what's left standing."

Boughton, who now works for the federal forest service in Pennsylvania, said
he has always believed that rising temperatures helped push the beetles'
spread in Alaska. But he said he draws the line when anyone tries to
attribute those dead trees to excessive burning of fossil fuels rather than
to natural climate cycles. Others, including members of Alaska's
congressional delegation, have expressed similar reservations.

That's where the debate is heading now, said Juday. It's beyond the reach of
forest ecology. Juday, who thinks human emissions are partly to blame for
climate change, is impatient with misuse of the scientific work from any
political direction.

"Look, both factors are involved. You can't deny that natural changes are
part of it. Nobody flipped a switch and turned that off," he said. "But
nobody is trying to argue that case."

He said he has cautioned advocacy groups about oversimplifying the forest
health issue for dramatic purposes. "We have to put the brakes on some of
these enthusiasts who want to use one forest fire to stop global warming,"
he said. On the other hand, he said, the evidence of change in the Arctic —
from forest fires, receding glaciers, coastal erosion — is consistent.

Berg has gone on to do other work on the Kenai refuge, investigating
treeline changes, for example, including the straightening up of the stunted
alpine hemlock known as krummholz. Lately he has been taking core samples of
drying muskegs, finding that the surface spread of woody plants such as
blueberry and dwarf birch is a brand new phenomenon. Peat deposits dating
back 10,000 years show no evidence of woody roots, he said.

"The shrub invasion seems to be going full bore," Berg said.

Ed Holsten, a retired forest service entomologist gradually won over to the
global warming theory, said he expects Alaska will face more insect problems
in the near future, even as the bark beetle's day fades. He mentioned such
spreading pests as the birch leaf miner, which mottles birch leaves, and the
larch sawfly.

Not that the spruce bark beetle is going away. Scientists expect the bug
will remain part of the warmer ecosystem, ready to nip off the young
surviving spruce once they reach maturity. A handful of older trees seem
resistant to attack, for unknown reasons. But Juday's chapter concludes that
efforts to replant spruce and bring back the old forest on a new cycle may
be doomed.

For forest scientists, the interesting question no longer is what caused all
the trees to die, but what kind of landscape will replace them.
---------

Desperate Measures

16-09-2005, 22:51

Other sources of Hawkintom:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/fact-vs-fiction-on-climate-change.html

Myth: “There is no agreement between scientists about climate change. Indeed a large number believe climate change isn’t happening at all and they’ve signed a petition (the Oregon Petition) to say so.”

Fact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 to study climate change. Its 2500 scientists – including eight Nobel Laureates – are drawn from the leading national and international scientific institutions. Their consensus, involving more than 14 years of assessment and peer-review, is that climate change is occurring and that it is very likely to be the result of the production of greenhouse gases from human activity. The scientists also point out that no known natural factors – like solar radiation changes or normal variability – can by themselves explain the rapid warming.

Opponents of action on climate change portray the Oregon Petition as evidence of scientific division on the question and say it has the support of 18,000 ‘scientists’ but the petition has been widely discredited. Among the signatories were Geri Halliwell, the former Spice Girl, fictional television characters, TV weathermen and dead people. Many scientists who signed it did so because it was falsely portrayed as being from the highly-respected US National Academy of Science. The status of the signatories was never checked; signatories were assumed to have only a bachelor’s degree in science, not any particular climate specialism or knowledge. The Oregon Petition does not indicate scientific doubt on climate change.

The Oregon Petition was collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, revealed to be a self-styled pressure group providing an ‘alternative’ voice on science. Amongst its other contributions is a publication entitled Nuclear War Survival Skills.

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/ClimateChange.htm

The Petition Project effort should be seen for what it

really is - an unfortunate attempt based on false and

misleading information to promote the OISM/MI/SEPP non-

scientific agenda to scrap actions to curb greenhouse gas

emissions. The international community has accepted the

IPCC's conclusions that global warming is a problem with

potentially serious consequences and has begun to move

forward on a plan of action. The Petition Project is

intended to divert attention from the clear warnings of the

world's leading scientists in order to postpone actions that

could reduce the risks of global warming.

http://campus.queens.edu/faculty/jannr/bio103/kyoto.htm

HowTheDeadLive

16-09-2005, 22:54

Other sources of Hawkintom:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

in global environment
Prominent Skeptics Organizations

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/fact-vs-fiction-on-climate-change.html

Myth: “There is no agreement between scientists about climate change. Indeed a large number believe climate change isn’t happening at all and they’ve signed a petition (the Oregon Petition) to say so.”

Fact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 to study climate change. Its 2500 scientists – including eight Nobel Laureates – are drawn from the leading national and international scientific institutions. Their consensus, involving more than 14 years of assessment and peer-review, is that climate change is occurring and that it is very likely to be the result of the production of greenhouse gases from human activity. The scientists also point out that no known natural factors – like solar radiation changes or normal variability – can by themselves explain the rapid warming.

Opponents of action on climate change portray the Oregon Petition as evidence of scientific division on the question and say it has the support of 18,000 ‘scientists’ but the petition has been widely discredited. Among the signatories were Geri Halliwell, the former Spice Girl, fictional television characters, TV weathermen and dead people. Many scientists who signed it did so because it was falsely portrayed as being from the highly-respected US National Academy of Science. The status of the signatories was never checked; signatories were assumed to have only a bachelor’s degree in science, not any particular climate specialism or knowledge. The Oregon Petition does not indicate scientific doubt on climate change.

The Oregon Petition was collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, revealed to be a self-styled pressure group providing an ‘alternative’ voice on science. Amongst its other contributions is a publication entitled Nuclear War Survival Skills.

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/ClimateChange.htm

Score. Thats just knocked that one out of the equation. Good work sir.

Refused Party Program

16-09-2005, 22:55

... but the petition has been widely discredited. Among the signatories were Geri Halliwell, the former Spice Girl, fictional television characters, TV weathermen and dead people.

Best. Farce. Ever.

Desperate Measures

16-09-2005, 23:31

On the oft quoted junk science web page:

The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative, Rush Limbaugh type, political agenda. It is heavily anti-environmentalist, pro-business and libertarian. Milloy uses "junk science" mainly as a political and polemical term.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

Conversely, "sound science" in Milloy's book seems to be any science that makes it impossible to point the finger of blame--a definition that perfectly suits many of the corporations for which he has worked. For years, Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a Washington, DC firm whose clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. The clients for whom Milloy was personally registered included Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council. Both Milloy and the EOP Group claim that he no longer works there, but he was still registered as an EOP lobbyist as recently as the summer of 1999.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience
Asbestos!! YAY!!

It’s well-established that the Junkman Steve Milloy’s “sound science” internet mission was established with Philip Morris tobacco money aimed at undermining industry-critical research etc. Not much has changed! Pro-GM scientists on the Prakash AgBioView list are being encouraged to respond to the Junkscience.com offer. Going for the money should be an ethic many there are used to. There’s also Prakash delight over the second item below which you may also want to respond to.

http://ngin.tripod.com/138.htm

Milloy, who calls himself “The Junkman”, proudly states that he was a AAAS judge in his biographies on JunkScience.com and at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank devoted to free-market politics. However, AAAS does not list Milloy as a judge in last year’s competition.

According to AAAS spokesperson Ginger Pinholster, Milloy was invited to be a judge but quickly notified the other panelists that he had conflicts of interest due to his affiliation with the Cato Institute, another libertarian think tank. “It was just kind of a snafu, and he had a nice lunch on us,” she said in a phone message. “We’ve already dealt with it. This is a sponsored, nonprofit program, and I just want it to go away.”

“This is somewhat like discovering that Karl Rove [President Bush’s chief political adviser] was a judge in a contest for political journalism,” says Seth Borenstein, a national correspondent who covers the environment, science, and health for the Washington, D.C., bureau of Knight Ridder.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html

According to Reuters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned today (August 2, 2005), that "the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season will be worse than previously expected." Fox News reporter Rebecca Gomez reported this in a short segment on Your World w/Neil Cavuto this afternoon. Gomez' segment was immediately followed by an interview Cavuto conducted with Steve Milloy, whom Cavuto identified as "the portfolio manager at Free Enterprise Action Fund."

Milloy said that "global warming is a myth. Global warming hysteria is junk science that is propagated by the UN, the European Union, radical environmentalists. You know," he continued, "the UN science behind global warming puts oil for food in the shade in terms of scandal." He said there is "no evidence at all that humans are having an adverse impact on climate."

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/02/fox_hides_notorious_antiglobal_warming_corporatist_behind_the_title_portfolio_manager.php

So, Mr Milloy. What is dangerous?

Gough and Milloy noted they believe existing scientific evidence does not credibly link low levels of dioxin exposure with human health effects. "But not everyone agrees," said co-author Steven Milloy, editor of Junkscience.com. "Ben & Jerry's and Greenpeace, the company's source for information on dioxin, have concluded that dioxin is not safe at any level." "If dioxin is so dangerous, perhaps Ben & Jerry's should remove its ice cream from the market until it is 'safe,' consistent with the company's promotional literature," suggested Milloy.

Ice Cream! Ha ha! Go to hell Ben & Jerry!
(should we really be worried? "Sadly, all ice cream contains dioxin, not just Ben & Jerry's. So do meat, fish and dairy products. Even more tragically, so does breast milk. This contamination comes courtesy of all of the incinerators, chlorine-bleaching pulp mills, polyvinyl chloride plastic manufacturing plants and other industries that release it into the environment." http://www.iatp.org/iatp/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Cure_for_Ice_Cream_Headache_Shut_Down_Dioxin_S.htm

[NS]Hawkintom

17-09-2005, 16:06

To NS Hawkingtom:
Let me start by saying, I'm not a scientist but when I look at a scientific study, I wonder to myself, "Who is saying this? Why is he saying it?" Something you should do yourself. Why, if I'm not a scientist, would I even attempt to begin to discredit a scientist's science when I've already discredited the scientist himself and the organization he works for? Please, be logical.

That's EASY.

Scientist A. BIASED as heck towards the oil companies. He states that 2+2=4.

You dismiss him without looking at his work, or debating his actual work because of your pre-defined assumptions.

Scientist B. (In my mind, BIASED as heck towards his liberal beliefs, but in your mind) UNBIASED and doing true science. He states that 2+2=5.

You believe him because in your mind, he is unbiased. But in this example, he will be proven wrong with just the tiniest bit of research.

Now here's what is wrong with your argument:

Just because someone approaches the argument with a different view than you have doesn't mean their work isn't correct. It MAY be wrong, it MAY be right. You have to show why the WORK is incorrect, not the motives of the person. Your position is to throw out the work of anyone who doesn't agree with you, thus your beliefs will always be shown to be correct scientifically.

You also ignore that many of these researchers get grants (money from people like me - people called taxpayers) based on what the current scientific administration considers important to research at this time. If the current scientific adminstrative bodies believe global warming is the "real deal" then researchers are motivated to do research that proves this to be true.

That means two things.

1. Researchers in universities are motivated financially to do research that supports the "global warming" theory.

2. Researchers that do not believe in "global warming" as a catastrophic theory are often forced to go elsewhere for their funding.

Both sides can be biased by their funding, therefore you have to debate their science, not their motivations.

Finally, you can't know their motivations. Scientist A probably truly believes what he is proclaiming, and went to whereever he could get funding to support his beliefs. I don't think scientists realistically go around saying, "I'll write whatever you want about a subject if you'll give me money." I think that more realistically corporations and university heads go around saying, "Hey, we like what you are saying, we'll give you more money to research that."

I'm not going to tell you what Global Warming will do to us. Pointless talking about that with you.

Why is it pointless? Because you don't know? You're evading the question!!! :p

Your arguments are opinion based.

Yes, I know. So are yours. That is what I said in my very first post on this thread - post #9 I believe.

"So you are saying that he has thrown away ALL OF THOSE CREDENTIALS because he believes that global warming (as defined above) is a crock and is willing to work for the oil companies to show that." What happens when his funding runs out when he finds results that displease the oil company? Please, enlighten me.

Same thing that happens to your government funded or university funded researcher who suddenly decides his colleagues are wrong.

Here's one example... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29397-2005Jan22.html

Their mission statement:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

Here's how you can tell that statement is a huge lie. Find one article on that site that presents the other side of the case? It is run by Mann who is one of the biggest "global warming" guys out there.

Note, I am not saying his research is flawed because of his biases, but I am saying that the statement you have quoted is a lie because of his biases. It is political by definition. It is a site that he created to post his side of the climate story.

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 20:55

Scientists which start out with a conclusion and gear studies towards proving that conclusion true are not scientists.

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 20:58

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 20:59

Why is it pointless? Because you don't know? You're evading the question!!! :p

Gave you a link, brother.

Corneliu

17-09-2005, 21:00

Scientists which start out with a conclusion and gear studies towards proving that conclusion true are not scientists.

Well in that case, there goes all the research proving global warming! :D

Corneliu

17-09-2005, 21:04

Truth isn't political. Science isn't political. Just because politics want a say in science doesn't make it political.
Five hundred years ago, you'd swear the Earth was flat. I have a hard time reading your points on this matter.

Nice fallacy!

If politics wants a say in science, it then becomes political.

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 21:05

Well in that case, there goes all the research proving global warming! :D
HA HA! No. There was an observation. Planet getting warmer. There was a Hypothesis. The Hypothesis is currently being proved true.

hy·poth·e·sis [ hī póthəssiss ] (plural hy·poth·e·ses [ hī póthə sz ])

noun

Definitions:

1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

Conclusion
Conclusion n. The last part of anything; close; termination; end.
Conclusion n. Final decision; determination; result.

[NS]Hawkintom

17-09-2005, 21:49

Scientists which start out with a conclusion and gear studies towards proving that conclusion true are not scientists.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite who in the past has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. and is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work[b] who is also the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change and has a [b]Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin is NOT A SCIENTIST.

THEREFORE, you do not even have to argue against his science, since you are dismissing him as not being a scientist.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps the truth is that you can't argue your side? You've "posted a link" I see... Thanks!

I suspect even the people who are reading this that are on the "global warming" side of things are cringing at your position on this.

The Squeaky Rat

17-09-2005, 22:17

Hawkintom']THEREFORE, you do not even have to argue against his science, since you are dismissing him as not being a scientist.

He *is* dismissing the method used. A scientist who stops adhering to the scientific method simply no longer is a scientist. No matter how good his track record.

[NS]Hawkintom

17-09-2005, 22:28

He *is* dismissing the method used. A scientist who stops adhering to the scientific method simply no longer is a scientist. No matter how good his track record.

No he's not. He's dismissing every scientists that I bring to the table because he cannot, or is too lazy to bother with, find flaws in their science.

Also, he is ASSUMING that is what it happening, (and you are buying in to it or agreeing) without ever showing any evidence that is how Dr. Spencer is operating.

In fact, it is not. You see his credentials. He was in charge of monitoring the NASA upper atmosphere temperature satellites and he OBSERVED that the readings they were getting DID NOT FIT WITH global warming as it was being theorized by the Kyoto crowd.

He published works based on those observations.

Desperate Measures (a descriptive name, I might add) is TRYING to twist the argument by IMPLYING that Dr. Spencer is not a respected scientist who has likely accomplished more in his field than all the rest of us idiots here on this thread combined.

It is a reasonably effective way to argue here on the boards. Ad hominem is what it is called. And it is a way to avoid having to defend a position that you are not knowledgable enough about, by instead attacking the other PERSON instead of their position.

[NS]Hawkintom

17-09-2005, 22:29

Score. Thats just knocked that one out of the equation. Good work sir.

Not so fast...

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

The Heidelberg Appeal, authored by Michel Salomon and signed by a number of leading scientists, is a statement decrying "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development." Issued to coincide with the opening of the United Nations-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Appeal stated that its signers "share the objectives of the 'Earth Summit'" but advised "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry."

A version of the Heidelberg Appeal was published in the June 1, 1992 Wall Street Journal over the signatures of 46 prominent scientists and other intellectuals. It has subsequently been endorsed by some 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. It has also been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry. Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming, or for that matter of pesticides or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science.

Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal in fact appear to endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved." Its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the liberal Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists. In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." More recently, 110 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed another UCS petition, the 1997 "Call to Action," which called specifically on world leaders to sign an effective global warming treaty at Kyoto.

One notable signer of the Heidelberg Appeal was the late Linus Pauling, then the world's only living recipient of two Nobel Prizes (for chemistry and for peace). At the time the Appeal was circulated, Pauling had become associated with a controversial nutritional theory that advocated massive daily consumption of vitamin C. Although his earlier work is widely praised, his theories regarding vitamin C have been almost universally dismissed as pseudoscience. It appears, therefore, that (1) even Nobel laureates sometimes practice pseudoscience, and (2) even the practitioners of pseudoscience believe they are against it.

Signatories of the Heidelberg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments 3,082 signers from 106 countries including 72 Nobel Prize Winners:

Mr. Bruce N. Ames- Dir. of Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences Center, Berkeley- Biochemistry- USA
*Mr. Phillip W. Anderson- Nobel Prize (Physics), Princeton University- Physics- USA
*Mr. Christian B. Anfinsen- Nobel Prize (Chemistry)- Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore- Biology- USA
Mr. Henri Atlan- Pr., Head Nuclear Medicine Department, Hotel Dieu- Paris- Nuclear Medicine- France
*Mr. Julius Axelrod- Nobel Prize (Medicine)- Lab. of Cell Biology, Nat. Inst. of Mental Health- Cell Biology- USA
Mr. Etienne Baulieu- Inserm, Ac. of Sciences, France, National Ac. of Sciences, USA, Lasker Prize- Endocrinology- france
*Mr. Baruj Benacerraf- Nobel Prize (Medicine), National Medal of Science, President. Dana- Farber, Inc.- Cancerology- USA
*Mr. Hans Albrecht Bethe- Nobel Prize (Physics), em. Pr., Cornell University, Ithica, NY- Nuclear Physics- USA
*Sir James W. Black- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr. of Analytical Pharmacology, King's College, London- Pharmacology- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Nicolaas Bloembergen- Nobel Prize (Physics), Harvard University- Physics- USA Sir Hermann Bondi- Em. Pr. of Mathematics, King's College Un., Master of Churchill College Cambridge- Mathematics- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Norman E. Borlaug- Nobel Prize (Peace), Sc. Consult. Cimmyt, Mexico, Pdt. Sasakawa African Ass.- agriculture- USA Mr. Pierre Bourdieu- College de France, Paris- Sociology- France
*Mr. Adolph Butenandt- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Hon Pres. Max-Planck Institute- Chemistry- Allemagne
*Mr. Thomas R. Cech- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), University of Colorado- Chemistry- USA Mr. Carlos Chagas- Academia Pontificia, WIS- Medicine- Bresil
*Mr. Owen Chamberlain- Pr., Nobel Prize (Physics), Em. Pr., Un. of California, Berkeley- USA
*Mr. Stanley Cohen- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Distinguished Pr., Dept. of Biochem., Vanderbelt Un.- Biochemistry- USA
*Sir John Warcup Corniforth- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), School Chemistry and Molecular Sciences, Brighton- Chemistry- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Jean Dausset- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Ac. of sciences, France, Pres. U.M.S.R.,W.I.S., Paris- Immunology- France
*Mr. Gerard Debreu- Nobel Prize (Economy), Em. Pr. of Economics and Mathematics, Un. of California- Economy- USA
*Mr. Johan Deisenhoffer- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Un. of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas- Biochemistry- USA Sir Richard Doll- Em. Pr. of Medicine, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford- Epidemiology- Grande- Bretagne
*Mr. Christian de Duve- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Biology- Belgique
*Mr. Manfred Eigan- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), President of Max Plank Institut, Gottingen- Chemistry- Allemagne
*Mr. Richard R. Ernst- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich- Chemistry- Suisse
*Mr. Pierre de Gennes- Nobel Prize (Physics), Ac. of Sciences, Pr., College de France, Paris- Physics- F-+rance
*Mr. Ivar Giaever- Nobel Prize (Physics), Institute Pr. R.P.I.- Physics- USA
*Mr. Donald A. Glaser- Nobel Prize (Physics), Pr. of Physics, Un. of California- Physics- USA Mr. Francois Gros- Pr., College de France, Ac. of Sciences, France, Vice-President W.I.S., Paris- Biology of development- France
*Mr. Roger Guillemin- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Whittier Institute, La Jolla- Medicine- USA
*Mr. Herbert a. Hauptman- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pres. Med. Found. of Buffalo, Pr. of Biophysics Sc.- Biophysics- USA
Mr. Harald zur Hausen- Pr., Dir., Dir. of German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg- Cancerology- Allemagne
Mrs. Francoise Heritier-Auge- Pr., College de France, Pres. Cons. Nat. du Sida, Dir., EHESS- Anthropology- France
*Mr. Dudley R. Herschbach- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Baird Pr. of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge- Chemistry- USA
*Mr. Gerhard Herzberg- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), National Research Council of Canada- Chemistry- Canada
Mr. Benno Hess- Pr., Dr., Honorary Senator and former Vice Pdt. of the Max-Planck Society, W.I.S.- Biophysics- Allemagne
*Mr. Anthony Hewish- Nobel Prize (Physics), Pr. Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge Un.- Physics- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Roald Hoffman- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr. of Chemistry, Cornell University- Chemistry- USA
*Mr. Robert Huber- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Max-Planck Institut for Biochemie- Biochemistry- Allemagne
*Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Formerly President of the Royal Society of London- London- Grande-Bretagne
Mr. Eugene Ionesco- Literature- France
Mr. Serguei Petrivich Kapitza- Pr., Ac. of Sciences, Institut for Physical Problems, W.I.S.- Physics, electrodynamics- Russie
*Mr. Jerome Karle- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Chief Scientist, Lab. for Structure of Matter- Chemistry- USA
*Sir John Kendrew- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr., The Old Guildhall, Cambrdige- Molecular Biology- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Klaus Von Klitzing- Nobel Prize (Physics), Pr., Max-Planck Inst. Solid State Research, Stuttgart- Physics- Allemagne
*Mr. Aaron Klug- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), M.R.C. Lab. of Molecular Biology, Cambridge- Chemistry- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Edwin G. Krebs- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Em., Dep. of Pharm. & Biochem., Un. of q Washington- Biochemistry- USA
*Mr. Leon Lederman- Nobel Prize (Physics), Director Emeritus, Fermi Natl. Accelerator Laboratory- Nuclear Physics- USA
*Mr. Yuan T. Lee- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr. of Chemistry, Un. of California, Berkeley- Chemistry- USA
*Mr. Jean-Marie Lehn- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr., College de France, W.I.S.- Chemistry- France Mr. Pierre Lelong- Pr., Ac. of Sciences, W.I.S.- Mathematics- France
*Mr. Wassily Leontief- Nobel Prize (Economy), Pr., New York University- Economy- USA
*Mrs. Rita Levi-Montalcini- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Ac. Lincei, Ac. Pontificia, W.I.S.- Neurosciences- Italie
Mr. Andre Lichnerowicz- Pr., Ac. of Sciences, France, Ac. lincei, Ac. Pontificia, President of W.I.S.- Mathematical Physics- France
Mr. Richard S. Lindzen- Pr., US National Academy of Sciences, M.I.T., W.I.S.- Meterology- USA
*Mr. William N. Lipscomb- Nobel Priuze (Chemistry), Pr. Em., Harvard University, Cambridge- Chemistry- USA
*Mr. Harry M. Markowitz- Nobel Prize (Economics), Speizer Pr. of Finance, Baruch College- USA
*Mr. Simon van der Meer- Nobel Prize (Physics), Geneva- Nuclear Physics- Suisse
*Mr. Cesar Milstein- Nobel Prize (Physiology), Dr., Cambridge- Physiology- Grande-Bretagne
*Sir Nevill F. Mott- Nobel Prize (Physics), Em. Pr., Cambridge University- Physics- Grande- Bretagne

*Mr. Joseph E. Murray- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Dr., Surgery, Harvard Med. School- Cell Biology- USA
*Mr. Daniel Nathans- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., John Hopkins Un., School og Med., Baltimore- Molecular Genetics- USA Mr. Daniel W. Nebert- Pr., Dir., Center for Environmental Genetics, Un. of Cincinnati- Genetics- USA
*Mr. Louis Neel- Nobel Prize (Physics)- Physics- France
*Mr. Erwin Neher- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Dr., Dir. Max-Planck Institute, Biophysics, Goettingen- Biophysics- Allemagne
*Mr. Marshall W. Nirenberg- Nobel Prize (Medicine), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda- Medicine- USA
*Mr. George E. Palade- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Division of Cellular & Molecular Med.- Cell Medicine- USA
*Mr. Linus Pauling- Nobel Prize (Chemistry, Peace), Pr., Linus Pauling Institute Science and Med.- Chemistry- USA
Mr. Jean-Claude Pecker- Pr. Hon., College de France, Ac. of Sciences, Royal Ac. of Belgium, W.I.S.- Astrophysics- France
*Mr. Arno A. Penzias- Nobel Prize (Physics), Pr., Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill- Physics- USA
*Mr. Max Ferdinand Perutz- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge- Biochemistry- Grande-Bretagne
Mr. Julian Peto- Pr., Head, Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London- Epidemiology- Grande-Bretagne
Mr. Richard Peto- Pr. of Medical Statistics & Epidemiology, Un. of Oxford- Epidemiology- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr, John Charles Polanyi- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr. of Chemistry, University of Toronto- Chemistry- Canada
*Lord George Porter- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr., Chariman, Photomolec. Sc., Imperial College, London- Chemistry- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. I. Prigogine- Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Pr., Dir. Inst. Intern. de Phys. et de Chim., Bruxelles- Chemistry- Belgique
Mr. A. Prochiantz- Pr., Dir. of Research, CNRS, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, W.I.S.- Pharmacology- France
Mr. Ichtiaque Rasool- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena- Physics- France
*Mr. Tadeus Reichstein- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr. Em., Org. Chemistry, Un. of Basel- Organic Chemistry- Suisse
*Mr, Heinrich Rohrer- Nobel Prize (Physics), IBM Research Laboratory- Physics- Suisse
*Mr. Bert Sakmann- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Max-Planck Inst. fur Med. Forschung, Heidelberg- Cell Physiology- Allemagne
*Mr. Abdus Salam- Nobel Prize (Physics), International Centre for Theoretical Physics- Italie
Mr. Jonas Salk- Distinguished Pr., Dr., International Health Sciences- Biology- USA
Mr. Evry Schatzman- Pr., Ac. of Sciences, France- Astrphysics- France
*Mr. Arthur L. Schawlow- Nobel Prize (Physics), Stanford University- Physics- USA Mr. G. Schettler- Pr., Dr., Former President, Academy of Sciences, Heidelberg- Cardiology- Allemagne
Mr. Elie A. Shneour- Pr. Dir., Biosystems Research Institute, San Diego, California- Biochemistry- USA
*Mr. Kai Siegbahn- Nobel Prize (Physics)- Physics- Suede
Mr. S. Fred Singer- Pr. of Environmental Sciences, Un. of Virginia, Dir. of the Washington S.E.P.P.- Environmental Sciences- USA
*Mr. Richard Laurence Millington Synge- Nobel Prize (Chemistry)- Biochemistry- Grande- Bretagne
Mr. G. P. Talwar- Pr. of Em., Nat. Inst. of Immunology, Ac. of Science, India, W.I.S.- Immunopathology- Inde
*Mr. Jan Tinbergen- Nobel Prize (Economics)- Economics- Pays-Bas
*Lord Alexander R. Todd- Nobel Prize (Chemistry)- Chemistry- Grabde-Bretagne
Mr. Alvin Toffler- Author, Futurist- Futurology- USA
*Mr. Charles H. Townes- Nobel Prize (Physics), W.I.S., Pr. Em of Physics, University of California, Berkeley- Physics- USA
Mr. Rene Truhaut- Pr., Pharmacology, Faculte des Sciences Pharmaceutiques, Paris- Toxicology- France
*Sir John R. Vane- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Chairman of William Harvey Research Inst., London- Endocrinology- Grande-Bretagne
*Mr. Harold E. Varmus- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr. of Microbiology, Un. of California, San Francisco- Microbiology- USA
*Mr. Thomas Huckle Weller- Nobe Prize (Medicine), Pr. Em., Harvard- Medicine- USA
*Mr. Elie Wiesel- Nobel Prize (Peace), University of Boston- Literature- USA
*Mr. Torsten N. Wiesel- Nobel Prize (Medicine), Pr., Lab. of Neurobio., Rockefeller University, New York- Neurobiology- USA
*Mr. Robert W. Wilson- Nobel Prize (Physics), Head, Radio Physics Res. Dept., AT&T Bell Laboratories- Physics- USA

* Denotes Nobel Prize Winner

Straughn

17-09-2005, 22:43

Hawkintom']
Here's how you can tell that statement is a huge lie. Find one article on that site that presents the other side of the case? It is run by Mann who is one of the biggest "global warming" guys out there.

Note, I am not saying his research is flawed because of his biases, but I am saying that the statement you have quoted is a lie because of his biases. It is political by definition. It is a site that he created to post his side of the climate story.
Just chiming in a bit ... so you want someone with more experience and knowledge than yourself to basically stand off at a distance with his experience and knowledge just because for him to pursue what his experience and knowledge qualify and quantify his convictions seems political to you?
It could be you just don't have enough knowledge of the situation to debate with him.
As is, MANY, MANY scientists have to "publish-or-perish" and can be contacted regarding their work, maybe you'd care to take up your "perspective" on things with him (them) and see how often you end up with the short end of the stick.
Just sayin' ....

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 23:45

Hawkintom']So if I understand you correctly, you claim that a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite who in the past has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. and is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work[b] who is also the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change and has a [b]Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin is NOT A SCIENTIST.

THEREFORE, you do not even have to argue against his science, since you are dismissing him as not being a scientist.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps the truth is that you can't argue your side? You've "posted a link" I see... Thanks!

I suspect even the people who are reading this that are on the "global warming" side of things are cringing at your position on this.
Give it up trying to defend this asshole. Are you saying that people with PhDs can't be money grubbers. You'd be more at home preaching this BS somewhere where either people are already on your side or they just don't know any better. If the president received money from terrorists, would you trust him on terrorism? If the president received money from Big Tobacco, would you trust him on his stance of the harmful effects of tobacco? If the president received money from auto companies, would you trust his stance on auto safety records? The questions are hypothetical but I'd ask you to consider them seriously.

Desperate Measures

17-09-2005, 23:51

Hawkintom']Not so fast...

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

The Heidelberg Appeal,
Next time you want to defend yourself, maybe you should defend the correct petition.

Leipzig: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement signed by 80 academics and 25 meteorologists, repudiating the oft-repeated claim that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue. [1]

The declaration, which opposes the global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol, has appeared in two versions, both penned by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).

Heidelberg: The Heidelberg Appeal, authored by Michel Salomon and signed by a number of leading scientists, is a statement decrying "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development." Issued to coincide with the opening of the United Nations-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Appeal stated that its signers "share the objectives of the 'Earth Summit'" but advised "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry."

And it really has nothing to do with the first, as you cited youself, "It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science."

Which one do you want me to attack? Which one would you like to defend?

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 05:51

Just chiming in a bit ... so you want someone with more experience and knowledge than yourself to basically stand off at a distance with his experience and knowledge just because for him to pursue what his experience and knowledge qualify and quantify his convictions seems political to you?

Uhh, WTF did you say? Let me re-read that. Ok, No.

Thanks for asking though.

It could be you just don't have enough knowledge of the situation to debate with him.

Again, No. That is Desperat Measure's technique. You may have us confused? I'm willing to look up, research and debate the science. DM just attacks the scientists and declares any scientist that has published works which proclaim the "global warming catastrophe" might not be true, not to be a scientists, therefor not worth his time.

It is a sidestep, so he doesn't have to debate the science of the issue.

As is, MANY, MANY scientists have to "publish-or-perish" and can be contacted regarding their work, maybe you'd care to take up your "perspective" on things with him (them) and see how often you end up with the short end of the stick.
Just sayin' ....

So I assume that while I'm doing this (and so far, judging from the statements of Dr. Mann in the past I don't think he will go for it) I assume you will be contacting Dr. Roy Spencer to debate with him? Or is it just me that has to do anything in this thread?

Dr. Mann says his busy schedule didn't permit him to respond to "every frivolous note" from nonscientists. The climate-statistics expert, now 39, gained a big career boost from initial publication of the [hockey stick] graph in 1998 and 1999.

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 05:56

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 05:59

I found this graph particularly interesting. Especially since it comes from someone who is decidedly "pro-global warming disaster theory."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/fig1.gif

or better copy http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/Fig.1.pdf

The data clearly shows that CO2 concentration has gone up since 1998:

Temp up in 1998 CO2 366.63 ppm
Temp dn in 1999 CO2 368.31 ppm (up)
Temp dn in 2000 CO2 369.48 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2001 CO2 371.02 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2002 CO2 373.10 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2003 CO2 375.64 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2004 CO2 377.10 ppm (up) - approximate number on 2004

Meanwhile, the measured surface temperatures have fluctuated wildly:

gone up in 1998
fallen in 1999
fallen in 2000
risen in 2001
risen in 2002
fallen in 2003
fallen in 2004

How come this is happening in direct opposition to the predictions of the global warming theory crowd?

:confused:

Laerod

18-09-2005, 05:59

Hawkintom']Not so fast...

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

...

A version of the Heidelberg Appeal was published in the June 1, 1992 Wall Street Journal over the signatures of 46 prominent scientists and other intellectuals. It has subsequently been endorsed by some 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. It has also been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry. Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming, or for that matter of pesticides or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science.
...
I think the bold part speaks for itself...

Laerod

18-09-2005, 06:02

Hawkintom']I found this graph particularly interesting. Especially since it comes from someone who is decidedly "pro-global warming disaster theory."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/fig1.gif

or better copy http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/Fig.1.pdf

The data clearly shows that CO2 concentration has gone up since 1998:

Temp up in 1998 CO2 366.63 ppm
Temp dn in 1999 CO2 368.31 ppm (up)
Temp dn in 2000 CO2 369.48 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2001 CO2 371.02 ppm (up)
Temp up in 2002 CO2 373.10 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2003 CO2 375.64 ppm (way up)
Temp dn in 2004 CO2 377.10 ppm (up) - approximate number on 2004

Meanwhile, the measured surface temperatures have fluctuated wildly:

gone up in 1998
fallen in 1999
fallen in 2000
risen in 2001
risen in 2002
fallen in 2003
fallen in 2004

How come this is happening in direct opposition to the predictions of the global warming theory crowd?

:confused:You cite data for 7 years only and expect that to prove a point scientifically?

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 06:06

I think the bold part speaks for itself...

Originally Posted by [NS]Hawkintom
Not so fast...

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

...

A version of the Heidelberg Appeal was published in the June 1, 1992 Wall Street Journal over the signatures of 46 prominent scientists and other intellectuals. It has subsequently been endorsed by some 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. It has also been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry. Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming, or for that matter of pesticides or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science.

It does now! :p

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 06:10

You cite data for 7 years only and expect that to prove a point scientifically?

Why not, some of the "global warming" crowd are trying to use Katrina to show that we are suffering the effects of their pet theory? ;)

Do you know where I can find the data for C02 farther back? I'd be happy to look at more. I think you will find an equally poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature as you go back.

It's 1am here, so I won't be able to search for it tonight, but I will look tomorrow.

P.S. Thanks for the closest thing to a debate on the ISSUE that I have seen in the last hundred posts.

Laerod

18-09-2005, 06:11

Hawkintom']It does now! :pRationality in science simply means that science shouldn't live off of sensationalism.

Desperate Measures

18-09-2005, 07:51

Hawkintom']No he's not. He's dismissing every scientists that I bring to the table because he cannot, or is too lazy to bother with, find flaws in their science.

Also, he is ASSUMING that is what it happening, (and you are buying in to it or agreeing) without ever showing any evidence that is how Dr. Spencer is operating.

In fact, it is not. You see his credentials. He was in charge of monitoring the NASA upper atmosphere temperature satellites and he OBSERVED that the readings they were getting DID NOT FIT WITH global warming as it was being theorized by the Kyoto crowd.

He published works based on those observations.

Desperate Measures (a descriptive name, I might add) is TRYING to twist the argument by IMPLYING that Dr. Spencer is not a respected scientist who has likely accomplished more in his field than all the rest of us idiots here on this thread combined.

It is a reasonably effective way to argue here on the boards. Ad hominem is what it is called. And it is a way to avoid having to defend a position that you are not knowledgable enough about, by instead attacking the other PERSON instead of their position.
He was a fucking meteorologist. He worked for NASA. Very good. He has credentials. Very good. He's getting his mortgage paid by an oil company. This is not an ad hominem attack. This is rational thinking for a lay person. Do I trust this source?
No.
Why?
Because he is relating directly to a monetary power which would profit from a particular result.
Why am I not attacking his science? Fucking insane. Why don't I prove that there are no Gray Aliens attacking the planet while I'm at it? How much time and energy do you think I have to waste?
Ad Hominem? Is that what you think? I'm attacking one person? I attacked entire groups that you brought up for reasons which any sane person can see are justified.
Thanks to all the others that do see the justification.

Desperate Measures

18-09-2005, 07:52

Next time you want to defend yourself, maybe you should defend the correct petition.

Leipzig: The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement signed by 80 academics and 25 meteorologists, repudiating the oft-repeated claim that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue. [1]

The declaration, which opposes the global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol, has appeared in two versions, both penned by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).

Heidelberg: The Heidelberg Appeal, authored by Michel Salomon and signed by a number of leading scientists, is a statement decrying "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development." Issued to coincide with the opening of the United Nations-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Appeal stated that its signers "share the objectives of the 'Earth Summit'" but advised "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry."

And it really has nothing to do with the first, as you cited youself, "It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science."

Which one do you want me to attack? Which one would you like to defend?
Answer this.

Desperate Measures

18-09-2005, 08:29

Organization
Funding
Hot Air
Fun Fact

Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty
$155,000
Calls CO2 caps "a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist."
Advised by an AEI fellow.

Advancement of Sound Science Center
$40,000
Run by FoxNews.com's Steve Milloy.

American Council for Capital Formation
$250,000
"Science questions must be addressed before the United States and its allies embark on a path as nonproductive as that of the Kyoto Protocol."
Group netted nearly a million dollars from ExxonMobil from 2000-2003 but the real science bashing was in 2001 when they got a quarter million.

American Council on Science and Health
$90,000
"Policymakers can safely take several decades to plan a response" to global warming.
Michaels and Singer are advisors.

American Enterprise Institute
$960,000
Published 2004 climate article titled "Don't Worry, Be Happy."
Dick Cheney is a former senior fellow.

American Legislative Exchange Council
$712,200
Published Michaels' paper that claims "global warming could actually save lives."
Launched attack on "Sons of Kyoto" state legislation in 2004.

Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
$427,500
"Answering questions about global warming takes more than a few thermometers, an agenda and a press release."
Baliunas is an adviser; honored Senator Inhofe for "supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making."

Arizona State University Office of Climatology
$49,500
They got this amount in 2001 when the office was headed by

Robert C. Balling, a well known climate change "skeptic."

Atlas Economic Research Foundation
$440,000
"As the science behind global warming becomes increasingly sketchy, many environmentalists clutch even harder to their views."

Atlas fellow, Deroy Murdock , "You call this global "warming"?" The Washington Times, May 31, 1996.

Cato Institute
$75,000
One of the modern right's most respected think tanks
Michaels is a senior fellow.

Capital Research Center
$115,000
Right-wing nonprofit watchdog group
"Scientists disagree about climate change, but you wouldn't know that from the [Kyoto] treaty.

It is based on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide, or CO2, gas emissions caused by industrial activities

have created the so-called 'global warming' effect."

CRC President, Terrence Scanlon, "Outside View: Hot air blows away," United Press International, February 8, 2002.

Centre for the New Europe
$40,000
"Not only is the scientific basis of global warming increasingly uncertain, but Kyoto will also ultimately prove to be an economic disaster for Europe--and the developing world,"

CNR President, Tim Evans, "Kyoto will chill the global economy," The Daily Telegraph (letter), October 2, 2004.
Singer offers up his contrarian commentary on their website.

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
$40,000
Called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment "as phony as a three-dollar bill."
Driessen is a senior policy adviser.

Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change
$55,000
Calls CO2 emissions "a force for good, enhancing the organic matter that sustains all of humanity."

Citizens for a Sound Economy
$305,250
"The science behind global warming is inconclusive, and to teach otherwise is fearmongering."

Peggy Venable, director of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy in, "Groups criticize proposed texts ;

Conservatives duel liberals over books," San Antonio Express-N ews, September 7, 2001.
In 2001 its Texas branch fought to get rid of global-warming talk in school textbooks

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
$252,000
Website features "Some surprisingly clean facts about SUVs."
Driessen is a senior fellow;

Baliunas and Michaels are advisers.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
$1,380,000
Likens the danger of global warming to that of "an alien invasion."
Milloy is a fellow.

Congress of Racial Equality
$40,000
Says there is no "convincing, real evidence that humans are disrupting the earth's climate."
This year's Martin Luther King Day civil rights honoree was Karl Rove.

Consumer Alert
$35,000
Funds the Cooler Heads Coalition's denialist website, globalwarming.org
Michaels is an adviser.

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
$30,000
"The mounting evidence over the most recent years demonstrates that the forecasts for global warming were greatly exaggerated. This new evidence suggests that global warming may not even be occurring." (PDF)

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
$100,000
Montana-based thinktank
"Given the uncertainty around warming, and the fact that some models predict that temperature increases of up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit would have beneficial effects, increasing our adaptability to change may be more important than cutting emissions."

FREE's Research Associate John C. Downen, "Resiliency is the Key to Climate Change," Bozeman Daily Chronicle, November 13, 2002.

Fraser Institute
$60,000
Vancouver-based thinktank questions the "still-speculative risk of global warming."

Chief Scientist Kenneth Green, "Old school environmentalists need to become more business-minded," The Vancouver Province, June 2, 2003.
Soon and Baliunas co-authored Fraser's "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science."

Free Enterprise Action Institute
$50,000
Another of Milloy's projects, registered to his home address

Frontiers of Freedom
$612,000
"To listen to eco-radicals tell the story, it is a proven scientific fact that the climate is warming and that mankind is responsible...Nothing could be farther [sic] from the truth."
Driessen is a senior fellow.

George C. Marshall Institute
$310,000
Challenging global warming (and promoting missile defense) since 1989
Baliunas is a senior scientist; Michaels is a visiting scientist.

Heartland Institute
$312,500
Compares Michael Crichton to Rachel Carson and Upton Sinclair.
Publishes op-eds by Soon and Baliunas.

Heritage Foundation
$340,000
"For the next several decades, fossil fuel use is key to improving the human condition."

Hoover Institution
$140,000
Published "Happiness is a Warm Planet."
Singer is a former fellow.

Hudson Institute
$15,000
Got funding in 2000, the same year they published Singer's article, "Cool Planet, Hot Politics: The next president needs to know that the global warming hypothesis, though politically powerful, is scientifically weak."

Independent Institute
$30,000
Published 2003 report entitled: "New Perspectives in Climate Science: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us."
Singer is a former fellow.

Institute for Energy Research
$67,000
A 2003 "Letter to President George W. Bush" (PDF) advised that "the uncertain link between industrial emissions and global warming after a century of [greenhouse gas] buildup and decades of study points toward lower-range, benign warming scenarios."

International Policy Network
$50,000
"The temperature variations read in the past century could be part of a larger process that is alien to humanity."

IPI author Kendra Okonski ed., Adapt or Die: The science, politics and economics of climate change, London: Profile Books, 2003. p. 205

Mackinac Center for Public Policy
$15,500
Funding amount from 2001when a board of scholars member opined: "The Kyoto Protocol seems to be built on the following two assumptions: First, global warming is a function of human activity (with the biggest villains being automobiles, factories, and power plants), and second, we are currently experiencing unprecedented levels of global warming. However, a review of the earth's most recent 'geological history' brings into question both assumptions and puts the entire subject in a different light."

Media Research Center
$50,000
Blasted the "networks' overwhelmingly one-sided picture of the global warming debate."
Robert Novak dubs MRC an "indispensable counterpunch to liberal reporting." (PDF)

Mercatus Center
$40,000
George Mason University shop that included an eight-page speech by Michael Crichton in its official comments to the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2003.

National Black Chamber of Commerce
$75,000
Kyoto could "reverse the…economic progress that blacks and Hispanics have achieved in recent years." (PDF)

National Center for Policy Analysis
$205,000
"There is still no conclusive evidence that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise."
Singer is an adjunct scholar.

National Center for Public Policy Research
$160,000
In their "Questions and Answers on Global Warming." it states, "There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place," and "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming."
Its Envirotruth.org website debunks "myths" of climate change, including,

"Humanity is the primary cause of global climate change"; and

"The consensus of world scientists, as revealed by the UN's IPCC agree--humanity is causing significant climate change."

Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
$145,000
"No one seriously claims to know whether the past warming was caused by human activities; whether further warming will occur and, if it does, whether it will result from human activities, and whether such warming in some general sense would be a bad thing."

Senior fellow Benjamin Zycher, "State's Auto Emissions Bill Is Just So Much Gas," Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002.

Pacific Legal Foundation
$15,000
"Whether global warming is happening is a matter of debate"

PLF attorney, Anne M. Hayes, "Legislature declares war on SUVs," San Diego Union Tribune, July 12, 2002

Property and Environment Research Center
$60,000
Gave Bush a B- on global warming, applauding his acknowledgment of "the importance of scientific uncertainty." (PDF)

Reason Public Policy Institute
$230,000
Their website reads, "The sun, not a gas, is primarily to 'blame' for global warming."

Science and Environmental Policy
$10,000
"We should have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere"
Singer's pet project

Tech Central Science Foundation
$95,000
A virtual HQ for global warming deniers
Baliunas is a commentator; Soon is the science director; and Milloy is a contributing writer.

Run by former FoxNews.com editor and hosted by an AEI fellow.

Total 2000-2003
$8,678,450

[NS]Hawkintom

18-09-2005, 16:34

He was a fucking meteorologist. He worked for NASA. Very good. He has credentials. Very good. He's getting his mortgage paid by an oil company. This is not an ad hominem attack. This is rational thinking for a lay person. Do I trust this source?
No.
Why?
Because he is relating directly to a monetary power which would profit from a particular result.
Why am I not attacking his science? Fucking insane. Why don't I prove that there are no Gray Aliens attacking the planet while I'm at it? How much time and energy do you think I have to waste?
Ad Hominem? Is that what you think? I'm attacking one person? I attacked entire groups that you brought up for reasons which any sane person can see are justified.
Thanks to all the others that do see the justification.

Come on man, put some emotion into it! You can do better than that. Show some RAGE!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

It needs more cowbell, though.

Ok, seriously, lets debate the science in your most recent posts.

Ok, done.

Obviously you cannot debate the science I am presenting so all you can do is claim that a NASA scientist with a PhD in meterology who was in charge of the satellite system that measured atmospheric temperatures over the last decade or so is not qualified because he takes money from interests that you don't agree with...

Even though he actually worked for the government and found evidence that the global warming theory was flawed, and then was funded by companies that agreed with his initial findings.

Note the lack of cause and effect?

They didn't come to him and say, "Hey, say this for us." They came to him and said, "We agree with what you are saying, please research it more - here's more money to do that."

You're not gonna try to answer any of my science questions, are you?

Desperate Measures

18-09-2005, 21:15

Hawkintom']Come on man, put some emotion into it! You can do better than that. Show some RAGE!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

It needs more cowbell, though.

Ok, seriously, lets debate the science in your most recent posts.

Ok, done.

Obviously you cannot debate the science I am presenting so all you can do is claim that a NASA scientist with a PhD in meterology who was in charge of the satellite system that measured atmospheric temperatures over the last decade or so is not qualified because he takes money from interests that you don't agree with...

Even though he actually worked for the government and found evidence that the global warming theory was flawed, and then was funded by companies that agreed with his initial findings.

Note the lack of cause and effect?

They didn't come to him and say, "Hey, say this for us." They came to him and said, "We agree with what you are saying, please research it more - here's more money to do that."

You're not gonna try to answer any of my science questions, are you?
Where are you getting those 1915-1917 numbers? What scientist are you getting them from? Are you trying to trap me into saying that global warming is strictly a manmade invention?
The websites where you seem to get your information are full of politicized science. Are you going to answer my confrontation of your attempt to mislead with the nobel prize winners by combining two vastly different petitions?
I ask you again, what type of scientist do you think I am? I get my information from reputable sources. You do not.

Desperate Measures

18-09-2005, 21:35

Just throwing out an answer to a possibility of 1915-1917. The eruptions of Mt. Lassen lasted during those years.
Before you turn this against me (I know you will) natural events that cause Global Warming are to be expected and from what I understand, the Earth is capable of recovering from even a major eruption, even if it may take a few years. Eruptions such as these stress the global temperature and the constant outpouring of human gasses exagerrate the problem to the detriment of the Earth being able to repair itself. This is merely from what I understand to be the case and cannot be taken as fact.
Throwing out loaded questions like these are unfair due to the fact that you don't remotely care what answer I give in return and I'm not qualified to answer questions such as these. My argument with you, one that you find multiple ways of evading, is a an argument of sources. You choose political sources that are funded by Oil Companies. I choose the most scientific sources I can find.

Straughn

18-09-2005, 22:09

It needs more cowbell, though.

FINALLY, some well-deserved levity!!!

Christopher (Zorin) Walken rocks. He's apparently a good dancer too ...

Also, some NASA info for you.
CURRENT.

*ahem*

Land-cover changes can help slow or speed greenhouse warming

A new study is offering insight into long-term impacts of changes caused by human development, particularly the effects on the global climate of large-scale deforestation in tropical regions.
Researchers from Duke University in North Carolina analyzed years of data using the NASA General Circulation Computer Model and Global Precipitation Climatology Project to produce several climate simulations.
According to a September 13 NASA press release, the research shows that deforestation in different areas of the globe affects rainfall patterns over a large region.
"Our study carried somewhat surprising results," said lead author Roni Avissar, "showing that although the major impact of deforestation on precipitation is found in and near the deforested regions, it also has a strong influence on rainfall in the mid and even high latitudes."
Deforestation in the Amazon region of South America, for example, influences rainfall from Mexico to Texas and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Deforesting lands in Central Africa affects rainfall in the upper and lower U.S Midwest, and deforestation in Southeast Asia alters rainfall in China and the Balkan Peninsula.
Such changes mainly occur in certain seasons, and the combined effects of deforestation in these areas enhances rain in one region and reduces it in another.
The finding contradicts earlier research suggesting that deforestation would cause a reduction in rainfall and increase in temperature in the Amazon basin but have no detectable impact on the global water cycle, which describes the existence and movement of water on, in and above the Earth.
Improved understanding of tropical forested regions is valuable because of their strong influence on the global climate. The Amazon Basin drives weather systems around the world.
The tropics receive two-thirds of the world’s rainfall, and when it rains, water changes from liquid to vapor and back again, storing and releasing heat energy in the process.
With so much rainfall, an incredible amount of heat is released into the atmosphere – making the tropics the Earth’s primary source of heat redistribution.
Land-cover changes in tropical regions can have potentially significant consequences for water resources, wildfire frequency, agriculture and related activities at various remote locations.
Depending on its nature, land-cover change also can help slow or speed up greenhouse warming.
The researchers say their results are based on numerical simulations performed with a single general circulation model and that reproducing the experiment with other computer models using different atmospheric variables would be beneficial.
Additional information on how tropical deforestation affects rainfall is available on NASA’s Web site.

Source: U.S. Department of State and NASA

Straughn

18-09-2005, 22:14

Hawkintom']Uhh, WTF did you say? Let me re-read that. Ok, No.

Thanks for asking though.

Again, No. That is Desperat Measure's technique. You may have us confused? I'm willing to look up, research and debate the science. DM just attacks the scientists and declares any scientist that has published works which proclaim the "global warming catastrophe" might not be true, not to be a scientists, therefor not worth his time.

It is a sidestep, so he doesn't have to debate the science of the issue.

So I assume that while I'm doing this (and so far, judging from the statements of Dr. Mann in the past I don't think he will go for it) I assume you will be contacting Dr. Roy Spencer to debate with him? Or is it just me that has to do anything in this thread?
I don't see you posting current, or even this far along, particularly accurate information on the subject, you're picking and choosing, and although you have some admirable arguing wherewithal, you're kinda getting whittled down into a Corneliu-kind of charicature. At any point in time i can punch up about a dozen for to your one against, so i post 'em. So don't give yourself so much credit about what you're doing for this thread.
Desperate Measures has excellent posts and you should keep that in respect.

Straughn

18-09-2005, 22:26

Well, i thought this might be worth posting ...

*ahem*

Freak weather is "indication" of global warming Switzerland's top environment official Philippe Roch says Hurricane Katrina and the storms that have hit Europe are a clear indication of global warming.

The head of the Swiss environment agency warned on Thursday that Switzerland could face an increased incidence of natural disasters, and said maps were being prepared to identify the areas at greatest risk.

Roch was speaking to swissinfo after violent storms brought flooding to southern France ? the latest in a series of weather-related disasters.Floods devastated large swathes of Europe ? and parts of Switzerland ? last month. And in the wake of the flooding, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States laying waste to New Orleans. "These are typically phenomena described by the models for climate change. So the link is for me personally really evident," Roch said.

He added that a change in human behaviour could explain why these natural phenomena were wreaking so much destruction. Buildings were being constructed in areas which previously had been left untouched."I don't know the historic situation in New Orleans but... with the expansion of human kind we are trying to live next to rivers and on low lands and this increases the damage when such phenomena occur."Damage limitationRoch said that Switzerland's progressive environmental policies had limited the extent of the flood damage. "Our policy of forest protection has been very positive, because without these forests the damage would have been much much greater and we would have probably had many more casualties. "Secondly, we have completely changed our policy towards water. We now try to enlarge the space for rivers and are funding the renaturalisation of our rivers, which is a very good policy."
Roch praised the preparedness of the cantons and the municipalities for dealing with flooding, but warned that natural disasters were likely to become more frequent as the climate heats up."That's why we are now creating new risk maps to avoid building infrastructure in areas that are under threat," he told swissinfo. "We have to adapt to the new situation by developing a long-term prevention strategy." "We have to continue our policy against climate change but we will not be able to curb the phenomena in the short term."
swissinfo, Morven McLean

...

M'kay, start the character assassination now .... :rolleyes:

Straughn

18-09-2005, 22:29

And ....

*ahem*

'Bellwether' Of What's To Come Farther South, Say Queen's Researchers

Dramatic clues to North American climate change have been discovered by a team of Queen's University scientists in the bottom of 50 Arctic lakes.

Using innovative techniques that enable them to collect historic evidence from fossilized algae in lake bottom sediment, the researchers have found signs of marked environmental changes in a variety of lakes of different depths and composition, within a 750-km region bordering the northern tree-line. The changes are a signal of things to come in the rest of North America, say the Queen's paleolimnologists.
"We're seeing a significant, regional change in the ecology of these lakes over the past two centuries that is consistent with warmer conditions," says Dr. John Smol, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change and co-head of the university's Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory (PEARL). Dr. Smol conducted the study with Dr. Kathleen Rühland and student Alisha Priesnitz of Queen's Biology Department.
"Because the Arctic is a very vulnerable environment and usually the first area of the continent to show signs of environmental change – often to the greatest degree – it's considered a bellwether of what will happen elsewhere," says Dr. Rühland. "These are important signals that all of us should be heeding: the lakes' sedimentary records have tracked marked and directional ecosystem changes."
The Queen's study will be published this month in the international journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research.
To reconstruct past environmental trends, the team used fossil markers (tiny algal cells) preserved in lake sediment. Sediment cores were collected by helicopter from the 50 lakes, in an area from Yellowknife, NWT, in the Boreal forest area towards the Bering Sea in the Arctic tundra. For each lake, they compared fossilized algae preserved in the top, most recent sediment layer with those from the bottom, pre-industrial layer dating back about 200 years.
They found that the aquatic habitat of today is much different from that of pre-industrial times. More fossils of the type that live in open water environments were found in the top (most recent) layer of sediment – an indication that these lakes have less ice cover and a longer growing season that would alter important lakewater properties such as light availability and the way lakes stratify, as a result of warming. This marked a major ecological shift in the lakes that coincides with a period of increased human industrial activities and emissions in more southern regions.
--

Earlier PEARL studies in the High Arctic tundra had indicated major changes in the different layers of fossils associated with climate warming. The new findings bring the effects of climate change closer to populated areas. "The logical extension was to see if tree-line lakes also show these dramatic changes, and this study confirms that the impact is even greater than previously documented," says Dr. Rühland. "We believe that the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, in the form of climate change, are already having a notable impact on the Arctic environment."
As well as affecting plant and animal life in this region, melting permafrost and less ice cover are already beginning to have repercussions on human concerns such as transportation, housing, and even sovereignty issues.
Last year an entire Nunavik community was relocated by the Quebec government after melting permafrost caused houses to slide from their foundations. Other researchers have found evidence that ocean ice is thinning, which could have future implications for intercontinental transportation routes.
"Until recently, no one was reconstructing Arctic climates in this way, because the technology didn't exist," says Dr. Smol. "Now that we can, in essence, reconstruct the past through this indirect technique, we're filling in gaps in our knowledge and finding answers to many ecological and environmental questions that have great significance for the future."

NationStates Jolt Archive

Global Warming