NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting link
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

I'm still trying to run down the Oregon Petition, which is here
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Just thought Gymoor would like to know I'm still reading up on the subject to see what can be found.

Interesting link
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

I'm still trying to run down the Oregon Petition, which is here
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Just thought Gymoor would like to know I'm still reading up on the subject to see what can be found.

I'm sorry but this gem caught my eye in the first link:
Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
FACT:The planet does not need saving...
:D

But there is one thing he neglects (first link again) when talking about cycles; true natural cycles lasting a thousand or so years occur. No one is saying they don't. But what is new to the equation is the Industrial Revolution and the amount of harm that might have caused. The planet has never experienced an additional weight like that, and given it is still ongoing in some places on a large scale (China being one) we can't really see whats' going to happen in the next 100 years or so. It might have speeded up an already natural cycle.

I'm sorry but this gem caught my eye in the first link:

:D

But there is one thing he neglects (first link again) when talking about cycles; true natural cycles lasting a thousand or so years occur. No one is saying they don't. But what is new to the equation is the Industrial Revolution and the amount of harm that might have caused. The planet has never experienced an additional weight like that, and given it is still ongoing in some places on a large scale (China being one) we can't really see whats' going to happen in the next 100 years or so. It might have speeded up an already natural cycle.

Gymoor wanted to know if there was any literature out there that contradicts the view that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. I'm still looking around.

<snip>
Well I was going to post about time-frames for these events, but....

But, omg, just imagine by how many feet sealevels would rise if the north pole completely melted away!

People can sometimes make odd conclusions.

The argument against global warming is ludicrous. It's like evolution: No serious, mainstream scientist who knows anything of the subject doubts global warming. In addition, a vast amount of the people who try to discredit global warming are, not surprisingly, paid by or associated with the oil industry.

In addition, a vast amount of the people who try to discredit global warming are, not surprisingly, paid by or associated with the oil industry.and those, who try to advance it are paid by the solarpanel-, windgenerator-, donationcollectingindustries?

Gymoor wanted to know if there was any literature out there that contradicts the view that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. I'm still looking around.

Actually, I don't even argue that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. I argue that it is significantly augmented by human activity.

It would be more accurate to see the global climate as a giant set of scales. On one side are all the factors that allow heat energy to escape back into space. On the other side are all the factors that hold heat energy in, one of which is the greenhouse effect. Now, what man is contributing is only a small fraction of what's on one side of the scale...but it is enough to throw the scales out of balance. As man's contribution is the only thing we can control, that's the only factor we can work on to bring things back into balance.

and those, who try to advance it are paid by the solarpanel-, windgenerator-, donationcollectingindustries?

So...NASA is beholden to environmental interests? In prior threads, I've been able to clearly link anti-global warming scientists to energy concerns (showing my sources in the process.) If you can do that for the other side, instead of just throwing out accusations, then I'll listen to you.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize.

Interesting link
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

Hardly a group to be taken seriously: they have a total membership of about two and a half thousand.

The Oregon Petition...must be from a different part of Oregon. Around here someone who disagreed with global warming would probably get stoned to death. (Either meaning of the word would be accurate)

hahaha

MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

MYTH the above is relevant or an accurate representation of anything that anyone ever says.

FACT atmospheric carbon is at the highest it has been since before the last common ancestor of humans and monkeys lived.

FACT THE SECOND the current increase is unexplainable without the inclusion of anthropogenic emissions.

But, omg, just imagine by how many feet sealevels would rise if the north pole completely melted away!

It'd be Waterworld! :p

Seriously, I remember reading that it'd only mean something like 70 feet.. No Waterworld after all.. :(

It'd be Waterworld! :p

Seriously, I remember reading that it'd only mean something like 70 feet.. No Waterworld after all.. :(

So we lose all of Manhattan. Meh.

heh, even better:

(home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen)

and for the realistic effect, put a whole bunch more ice on a shelf outside the bowl that slants into it. wait for that ice to melt too and measure how far the water level falls when more water that wasn't already in the bowl is added to it.

It'd be Waterworld! :p

Seriously, I remember reading that it'd only mean something like 70 feet.. No Waterworld after all.. :(

70 metres IIRC.

70 metres IIRC.

In the world today, there's a LOT of people living on the coast.

Actually, I don't even argue that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. I argue that it is significantly augmented by human activity.

It would be more accurate to see the global climate as a giant set of scales. On one side are all the factors that allow heat energy to escape back into space. On the other side are all the factors that hold heat energy in, one of which is the greenhouse effect. Now, what man is contributing is only a small fraction of what's on one side of the scale...but it is enough to throw the scales out of balance. As man's contribution is the only thing we can control, that's the only factor we can work on to bring things back into balance.

Did you see the link to the Oregon Petition (including the summary of evidence the Oregon Petition presents)?

Something like 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition. I find it an interesting summary.

So we lose all of Manhattan. Meh.

No, just the bottom part

Did you see the link to the Oregon Petition (including the summary of evidence the Oregon Petition presents)?

Something like 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition. I find it an interesting summary.

Mmmhmm, and and wiki has something to say about it

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

Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science)

And see here as well:

http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/

Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.


How was the “review” able to claim cooling? Simple. The authors presented the satellite data (which at the time showed slight cooling, but now shows significant warming) but dismissed the more extensive surface data because it had “substantial uncertainties”. The only uncertainty that they mention is the urban heat island effect and what they fail to mention is that the surface temperature estimated by GISS corrects for the urban heat island effect. The “review” is not honest.
As a researcher, when I see a “research review” I expect that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand how a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review might be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming, especially because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate scientists.

See also this:

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

and how about this:

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498


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.

Oh, and this is HILARIOUS:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.pop.culture/

A 1998 petition by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine -- a father-son team also known for marketing nuclear war survival kits -- purported to have signed up 17,000 scientists to a petition stating that climate change didn't exist. The petition got its fifteen minutes of fame -- twice. First when it was cited as a serious blow to those concerned about climate-change in newspaper columns and editorials in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere; then again when it was discovered that many of the scientists on the petition didn't exist. Signers included Dr. Geraldine Halliwell (a.k.a. "Ginger Spice" of the Spice Girls), and most of the cast of M*A*S*H: Doctors Pierce, McIntyre, Houlihan, Burns and Potter. You can still sign up at www.oism.org, if you promise that you're a scientist.

ahahahahahaha!!!!

Mmmhmm, and and wiki has something to say about it

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


I still find this interesting reading
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm#CO2_levels

Could you address all of the points that they make?

I still find this interesting reading
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm#CO2_levels

Could you address all of the points that they make?

I'll contact Scary Spice to get her comment.

Until she does, consider how their argument about the CO2 graph is destroyed by the core sample that measure CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence to show that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide rises, so carbon dioxide levels cannot be a cause of global warming and any steps taken to reduce emissions are futile.

This is funny. First of all, anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that CO2 is not the lone cause of global warming, but merely a factor. Temperatures can rise or fall independent of CO2 levels. But, and this is very important, those rises and falls are attributable to other phenomena (such as the cooling that occurs after a major volcanic eruption.) When you remove those phenomena, then the effect of CO2 is clear.

Anyway, It would take me days to track down and refute every point they make (which you merely pasted...all of 1 minute's work.)

I'll contact Scary Spice to get her comment.
Not the Oregon Petition site...

There are also some interesting quotes at the bottom of the same page

http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm#CO2_levels

Apparently, this guy isn't a believer in man-made global warming, and he appears to be a respectable scientist

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf

Is the climate changing? Yes, it always has and it always will, but it is
very difficult to detect on decadal time scales or on regional spatial
scales.
Are climate models useful? Yes, and improving. At this point, their
utility is mostly related to global averages, though shortcomings are still
apparent.
Is that portion of climate change due to human factors good, bad or
inconsequential? No one knows (although the plant world thrives on
increases in carbon dioxide because CO2 is plant food.)

http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf

Actually, I just read recently that increased CO2 levels do have a beneficial effect on plant-life...for a very short period only. Of course, these CO2 experiments were conducted in greenhouse conditions, so any criticisms about incomplete science that these scientists have about Global Warming advocates can be turned back at them 10-fold.

Actually, I just read recently that increased CO2 levels do have a beneficial effect on plant-life...for a very short period only. Of course, these CO2 experiments were conducted in greenhouse conditions, so any criticisms about incomplete science that these scientists have about Global Warming advocates can be turned back at them 10-fold.

It still doesn't address his argument that there isn't enough evidence to make the claim that man is the primary cause of the current round of global warming.

It still doesn't address his argument that there isn't enough evidence to make the claim that man is the primary cause of the current round of global warming.

But this does:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/12/MNGEQE700H1.DTL

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, conceded Thursday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Starting around 2001, the satellite data and methods of Christy and Spencer were re-examined by Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, scientists at Remote Sensing Systems, a company in Santa Rosa that does satellite data analysis for NASA.

They and several other teams have since found more significant warming trends than the original estimate.

And this:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=8620

In fact, these new results blow apart the argument of global warming skeptics who have denied warming and misused data to delay policy actions. And is the warming only “modest” as Michaels says? No, the new rate not only agrees with climate model estimates and actual observations, but shows warming is already happening at a rate more than twice as fast as leading skeptics have been willing to admit and far higher than what nature can dish out. In fact, there is no longer any credible observational or modeling estimate that disagrees with the conclusion that humans are already rapidly changing the planet’s climate.

that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

If it's too small to be a concern, then something else is causing the vast majority of the warming.

If it's too small to be a concern, then something else is causing the vast majority of the warming.

Only the original erroneous researcher said it was too small to be a concern. Also, you're misreading even the original erroneous researcher. He;s not saying man's contribution is too small to be a concern, but that the raw temperature change is too small to be a concern...which the later research counters.

Again, you're not thinking in enough complexity. Of course natural factors cause warming and cooling. On top of that is added man's contribution. For example, if we were in a phase of extreme cooling, man's contribution would actually lessen the cooling (as actually happened in the 1990's when the earth cooled a little due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.)

Man's contribution does not exist in a vacuume.

Only the original erroneous researcher said it was too small to be a concern.
Just because you admit to one error (which shows some honesty on his part) doesn't mean that everything you thought of is erroneous.

Just because you admit to one error (which shows some honesty on his part) doesn't mean that everything you thought of is erroneous.

True, but his study was based on erroneous and incomplete data, and those errors were demonstrated. When that happened, he naturally tried to downplay the significance. He's only human, and he obviously invested a lot of time on the project.

See, I'm not attacking the man, I'm showing that his work on that particular project was proven incorrect.

True, but his study was based on erroneous and incomplete data, and those errors were demonstrated.

See, I'm not attacking the man, I'm showing that his work on that particular project was proven incorrect.

I'm saying that it still doesn't overcome his assertion that the effect of man is not significant (even though there is an effect).

I'm saying that it still doesn't overcome his assertion that the effect of man is not significant (even though there is an effect).

Actually, it does, since the study he based that assertion on was proven incorrect.

Do you have another study by him?

Here, let me whip out a favorite chart of mine -

http://www.boomspeed.com/darkhelmet/globaltemp.jpg

Greenland at one point had palmtrees, and there was little, if any ice at the poles - all within the last 50 million years or so. No humans needed, aint that a bitch? Our planet is actually colder now than it has been in the last 100 million years, and we can thank India slamming into Asia for the ice-age periods of recent geological time. Nothing lasts forever, and yet so many people believe that the Earth and its biosphere are a static and unchanging thing.

The planet Earth is warming up, only a fool could argue otherwise, but that is all I am willing to concede to the environmentalist on. I believe our planet would continue warming with, or without humans. Nothing dissapoints me more (and frustrates me more) than listening to idiots droll on about how the Earth will wind up like Venus in the next 100 years if we don't stop now and save the rain forests. Please. Planet Earth has experienced more biblical catastrophies than there are letters in this post, and yet here it is, and here we are. We flatter ourselves if we believe we can so much as make this planet notice us by burning alot of fires.

The human race has been around for roughly 60,000 years - and only 5,000 years of it do we have recorded history. In the life span of the human race, we have witnessed the Sahara in North Africa go from savanna to desert, the continental ice-shelves covering all of Canada recede back to the poles, and countless land bridges in Southern Asia sink beneath the waves. The only thing anyone can say for certainty is that our planet changes...a great deal.

In summary -

1 - Yes, the planet is warming up
2 - No, humans really couldn't make a difference right now one way or another about it
3 - No, the planet Earth will not be a 600 degree wasteland 500 years from now, calm down.
4 - No, I cannot say for certain whether these changes will bode well or ill for humanity, but life itself will go on long after we are gone, so once again - calm down.

Sorry about the lengthy rant, but the <Global-Warming-OMG-DOOMSDAY> concept is one I would like to declare a Jihad on.

"In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year"

I wonder where they get those figures. For 19 years I lived in a town holding the record for being the coldest place in Finland: The last two temperature records were measured there, the latest being -51.5 celsius (that's about -60 Fahrenheit). I can't recall a single incident of someone freezing to death. Of course it does happen, but if a few hundred thousand people dropped dead across northern Europe every cold winter, I'd say it'd be pretty hard to miss.

1 - Yes, the planet is warming up

You got that right


2 - No, humans really couldn't make a difference right now one way or another about it

B.S., just because the Earth was warmer in the past does not render it climate change-proof in the future. Nor does the fact that it was warmer in the past mean that all occurrences of warming are natural. Just because a forest burnt down naturally in the past does not mean that arson can't be committed in the future. Plus the gross majority of research does indicate man's "fingerprints" all over the current climate change. By removing natural causes from the equation, the climate change remaining is man's.

3 - No, the planet Earth will not be a 600 degree wasteland 500 years from now, calm down.

No one is arguing that. The concerns have to do with more subtle things, like coastal flooding. Desertification of inhabitied areas. Increased storm activity. Plant species die-off. Increased precipitation in some areas, lowered precipitation in others. Increased occurrence of disease transmission.

4 - No, I cannot say for certain whether these changes will bode well or ill for humanity, but life itself will go on long after we are gone, so once again - calm down.

Life will go on....quality of life is the question. Feel free to poo-poo science if you like...engineers who looked at New Orleans' levees were ignored pre-Katrina. That worked out well.

Sorry about the lengthy rant, but the <Global-Warming-OMG-DOOMSDAY> concept is one I would like to declare a Jihad on.

It's true that some people are overly alarmist. That doesn't mean we should be blase either. There is a happy medium.

But, omg, just imagine by how many feet sealevels would rise if the north pole completely melted away!
bud doesn't ice displace about as much water as it contains?

bud doesn't ice displace about as much water as it contains?

Yes, if the ice is of the same composition as the water...but sea ice is less saline than sea water. Therefore it's even less dense. More floats above the surface.

Also, there is Antarctica to think about. Very thick ice overlaying land.

bud doesn't ice displace about as much water as it contains?

The problem is more what the melting of the pole caps will do to the oceans' currents like the Gulf Stream.

Also, not only the pole caps are melting - the glaciers are melting too and since the overall water temperature will rise so the water will take up more space.