Global Warming from +CO2 = FARCE [Archive]

Kodiak

25th September 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Kodiak...

What you offered in retort was appauling, pathetic, and rather sad.

While you did manage to accurately characterize each one of my arguments, you utterly failed to offer even a simple statement as to their inaccuracy.

I think you are being an ignorant a**hole.

That is anecdotal, right?

But am I wrong...

:roll:

It's not a question of right or wrong.

It the fact that your posts offer nothing to the argument/discussion/debate at hand.

From www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Examples of Fallacies

Inductive Argument
Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.

Factual Error
Columbus is the capital of the United States.

Deductive Fallacy
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)

Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).

Dymanic

25th September 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

"If Global Cooling isn't real, then why is every day cooler than the day before, and why are the water levels of the Great Lakes lower than I can remember?"
Two points I think you made quite well here are:

1) Anecdotal evidence reaches its peak of unreliability in attempts to extrapolate long-term global climate trends from short-term observations of local weather.

2) Our understanding of the complexities of global climate is woefully inadequate, making the subject particularly prone to biased interpretation.

Possibly the most eloquent comment I've yet heard on the subject is this:
Suppose you were due to take a flight and were told that the maintenance engineers thought there was a strong probability that the aircraft would crash before reaching the destination, but the company accountant thought it would be probably be OK.

Would you get on the plane?

Pyrian

25th September 2003, 01:55 PM

What is a untrue is that this is controversial.

It isn't.

It's been settled.

Global warming is happening.

The scientific establishment has been in agreement on this for some time now.

Don't mistake a few loud, well-funded voices for controversy.

Shinytop

25th September 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Pyrian
What is a untrue is that this is controversial.

It isn't.

It's been settled.

Global warming is happening.

The scientific establishment has been in agreement on this for some time now.

Don't mistake a few loud, well-funded voices for controversy.

Pardon me, but the cause of global warming is what is in debate.
Were the harsh winters of the late 18th century due to man's destruction of the environment or cyclical changes? The same debate is going on now. The answer is not a slam dunk.

Dymanic

25th September 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Shinytop

Pardon me, but the cause of global warming is what is in debate.
Well, it seems to me that the debate is about whatever the participants choose to debate. The issue has been raised as to whether global warming is happening at all. I agree that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it is, and that this is not a subject of serious debate within the scientific community. To claim otherwise demonstrates the bias in interpretation I mentioned above, but in all fairness, those who hold the opposing view are not all completely unbiased either.

Actually, the OP went to whether CO2 has been identified as the prime culprit, and this does not seem to have been firmly established.

But the big questions really are: to what extent is global warming being driven by human activities? How great an impact will this have on future human activities? And: what, if anything, can be done to prepare for the effects? (Since it's pretty obvious that if it is primarily a result of things we are doing, we aren't going to stop doing them in time to slow the effects).

EvilYeti

25th September 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
Actually, the OP went to whether CO2 has been identified as the prime culprit, and this does not seem to have been firmly established.

The best current data indicates the strongest correlation amongst all possible GW causes is human CO2 emissions. This is accepted by the vast majority of the earth science community.

But the big questions really are: to what extent is global warming being driven by human activities?

Most of the warming of the last 100 years is due to greenhouse gas emissions from human industry.

How great an impact will this have on future human activities?

Unknown, possibly dramatic and drastic. For example, warmer oceans increase the severity of hurricanes.

And: what, if anything, can be done to prepare for the effects? (Since it's pretty obvious that if it is primarily a result of things we are doing, we aren't going to stop doing them in time to slow the effects).

Well, for one we could at least cut down on CO2 emissions on a global scale until we have a better idea of what the long term effects are. Plus we will have more time to research and implement a solution.

a_unique_person

25th September 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Kodiak, a representative from the midwest United States:

"If Global Cooling isn't real, then why is every day cooler than the day before, and why are the water levels of the Great Lakes lower than I can remember?"

I'm beginning to think that KOA and A_U_P are the same person.

They both seem to pull from the same well: anecdotal evidence.

Global warming does not say that all areas of the earth will get uniformly warmer. For example, the reason the English don't freeze their *** off more than they do already is that they get weather deflected towards them from France. It is entirely feasible that England will get colder if the weather patterns are changed due to GW and they don't get the warmer weather from France.

As for the Great Lakes...... I don't recall them being claimed to be at sea level, being as they, fresh water lakes. For them to be lower, if GW was a cause, would be due to their receiving less fresh water from rain.

corplinx

25th September 2003, 11:22 PM

On any reef there will be death/bleaching for any number of reasons. There will be decades where coral prosper and decades where they fight infections, constant catastrophic weather, etc.

Some recent research I was reading got ballyhooed by enviromentalists because it showed one reef was damaged by deep water upflow currents and not ocean surface temp. You see, his data didn't fit in with the anti-capitalist message that is so synonymous with activist environmentalism (versus convservationists like me).

I dive coral reefs several times a year. I love reefs. You could't dream of a bizarre alien landscape as beautiful and mysterious as the bloody bay wall of litte cayman.

RichardR

26th September 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The best current data indicates the strongest correlation amongst all possible GW causes is human CO2 emissions.Really? I'm not sure it's quite that simple:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/zonklim.gif

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/tsol2.gif

Source: Evert Wesker (http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/solspot.html)

Drooper

26th September 2003, 03:14 AM

A couple of good charts there. There IS substantial controversy over this still.

The problem with all this "global warming" stuff is that:

1) the climate changes. It always has always will.

2) the climate is such a complex system we cannnot even begin to model it let alone ascribe with any accuracy what may or may not be the causal factos behind any change.

3) The measurements used are so error prone. Look at a comparrision of surface temperature trends (those are the ones used to claim mean temperatures are rising), satellite measures and those derived from weahter balloons. They tell different stories. ie. only the surface based measures suggest significant warming.

4) The theories for CO2 driven anthropgenic warming are too simple and exclude things such as solar forcing.

5) when the models constructed are brought to the data they fail badly. For example

the most dramatic period of warming in the middle of the 20th century cannot be explained by CO2 emmissions.
All these global models predict warming to occur most markedly at the poles. However, temperatures in the antarctic have fallen.
They also suggest rising sea levels. However there is little evidence of this (see my chart earlier in this thread).

Kodiak

26th September 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Pyrian
Global warming is happening.

...and has been on and off since the earth's initial formation.

The skepticism I , and many others, have is whether the current warming trend is human caused.

Modern environmentalism, IMO, has two views: either they have an unswerving belief in the data supporting HCGW and automatically discount any and all data to the contrary, or they view all the data, both pro and con, equally, but still insist something must be done "just in case"...

Kodiak

26th September 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Global warming does not say that all areas of the earth will get uniformly warmer. For example, the reason the English don't freeze their *** off more than they do already is that they get weather deflected towards them from France. It is entirely feasible that England will get colder if the weather patterns are changed due to GW and they don't get the warmer weather from France.

As for the Great Lakes...... I don't recall them being claimed to be at sea level, being as they, fresh water lakes. For them to be lower, if GW was a cause, would be due to their receiving less fresh water from rain.

As usual, you completely missed the point!

I know how much you and KOA love anecdotal evidence, but try rereading what I posted above about fallacies. Maybe you'll get it the second time around... :)

From www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Anecdotal evidence

One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:

"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured."

It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.

a_unique_person

26th September 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
A couple of good charts there. There IS substantial controversy over this still.

The problem with all this "global warming" stuff is that:

1) the climate changes. It always has always will.

Yes, but the earth is still incredible stable in terms of absolute temperature. One of things that has allowed advanced life to form and evolve.

2) the climate is such a complex system we cannnot even begin to model it let alone ascribe with any accuracy what may or may not be the causal factos behind any change.

Not true. We cannot give the weather forecast for 100 years from now. We can, however, model the overall trends.

3) The measurements used are so error prone. Look at a comparrision of surface temperature trends (those are the ones used to claim mean temperatures are rising), satellite measures and those derived from weahter balloons. They tell different stories. ie. only the surface based measures suggest significant warming.

[/quote

Yes, these factors are taken into account

[quote]

4) The theories for CO2 driven anthropgenic warming are too simple and exclude things such as solar forcing.

No, they do know about such factors. They do actually study the climate and it's components more than you.

5) when the models constructed are brought to the data they fail badly. For example

the most dramatic period of warming in the middle of the 20th century cannot be explained by CO2 emmissions.
All these global models predict warming to occur most markedly at the poles. However, temperatures in the antarctic have fallen.
They also suggest rising sea levels. However there is little evidence of this (see my chart earlier in this thread).

They do not just model using CO2. Surprisingly enough, their models include numerous factors. The poles are warming. Penguins are moving further south because they have to get away from the snow, which they don't like and falls more heavily in areas where it is warming. Ice shelfs are breaking up and glaciers are melting. Put an ice cube in a glass of water. It melts, and in melting, maintains the glass of water at a cold temperature. Once it has finished melting, the glass of water starts getting warmer quite quickly.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/holper_2001b.html

Sea level

Warming of the earth's atmosphere will lead to warming of the upper layers of the oceans. Like most substances, water expands when heated. Expansion will raise sea level. Land-based ice in the temperate regions of the world (such as South and North America and Greenland) will melt more rapidly, adding to increased sea level. (Floating sea ice does not change the sea level when it melts.)

On the other hand, increased precipitation over Antarctica and Greenland could lock water away in the ice caps, ultimately reducing the extent of sea-level rise.

During the 20th century, global sea level rose by between 10 and 20 cm. Sea level is projected to rise by between 9 and 88 cm between 1990 and 2100.

Tell me what is missing in this model.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf

Drooper

26th September 2003, 07:55 AM

I need to correct a few things.

Firstly, as I stated, it is very difficult to measure the global "temperature". However, there is ample evidence to suggest that the earth has been significantly warmer and colder than it is at present over the past. example, the little ice age, from which we are still emerging, the medieval warm period etc.

Next point. Nobody has successfully modelled climate trends to date. Even the "within sample" performance of the current state of the art climate models make major blunders. In fact if you look at the literature on the behaviour of most well regarded of these models, they all give dramatically contrasting results.

Next point, the issue of excluded variables is important and is an inherent weakness of these models. Solar forcing is NOT saytisfactorily accounted for in climate models. There is also controversy over the nature of feedback form cloud cover.

Next, again some points of fact. the Oceans are not rising. Again, see my chart from earlier in this thread. I can point you to others.

Also the poles are NOT warming. Here are some charts showing temperatue trends in areas around the antarctic. Show me where exactly you see a warming trend here:

http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/stations/oz-antarct.gif

The most important points in this debate are:

The earths climate has always changed, including temperature. There needs to be substantial EVIDENCE that can prove the CAUSALITY from human action to climate change.

Secondly, the measurement of global temepratures is so flawed and error ridden, they need to be treated carefully. Again, refer to comaprisons with satellite data for temperature that do NOT show substantial warming.

Thirdly, the climate is far far to complex to model with any real confidence. The performance of all models developed to date only bears this out - e.g. where are the warming poles that are supposed to be one of the single most dramatic feature of the predictions of nearly all these models.

Pyrian

26th September 2003, 01:14 PM

There needs to be substantial EVIDENCE that can prove the CAUSALITY from human action to climate change.This would be the "I won't believe it until my house floats down the river" position.

We can't perform a controlled study. The computer models are of course inadequate (it is, after all, a chaotic system in every sense of the word). But the theory is simple, and one underpinning (an increase in greenhouse gases due to human output thereof) is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theoretical negative feedback systems (reflective clouds, et al) which people are counting on to save us are more dubious.

The ice is melting, whether you believe in the theory or not. By the time the sea ice is gone, it will be too late.

IMHO, it already is.

Grammatron

26th September 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Pyrian
This would be the "I won't believe it until my house floats down the river" position.

We can't perform a controlled study. The computer models are of course inadequate (it is, after all, a chaotic system in every sense of the word). But the theory is simple, and one underpinning (an increase in greenhouse gases due to human output thereof) is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theoretical negative feedback systems (reflective clouds, et al) which people are counting on to save us are more dubious.

The ice is melting, whether you believe in the theory or not. By the time the sea ice is gone, it will be too late.

IMHO, it already is.

This is exactly what's wrong with people, they yell "The sky is falling!" and refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise, no matter what evidence they have.

Pyrian, take a look at the post above yours and tell me again how you know the ice is melting.

shanek

26th September 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
This is exactly what's wrong with people, they yell "The sky is falling!" and refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise, no matter what evidence they have.

"I think those Global Warming people are the intellectual descendents of the people who used to tell us that unless we threw virgins into the volcano, a giant sea monster would come around and eat us. And then, sooner or later there'd be an eclipse, and they'd say, 'See? We told you this would happen!' 'No, you said we'd be eaten by a giant sea monster.' 'Well, whaddya think's blocking out the sun?' "Oh! Well, we'd better throw in some virgins then! Sure hope we can find a couple...'" —Tim Slagle

Chaos

26th September 2003, 02:59 PM

I think it does not really matter if WE are causing global warming. What matters is if it takes place or not.

We know what the effects of global warming will be if it takes place; these will be the same wether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles. The impact on humanity as a whole will be severe, if probably not fatal.

So, if global warming indeed takes place, we MUST find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it.

Grammatron

26th September 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I think it does not really matter if WE are causing global warming. What matters is if it takes place or not.

We know what the effects of global warming will be if it takes place; these will be the same wether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles. The impact on humanity as a whole will be severe, if probably not fatal.

So, if global warming indeed takes place, we MUST find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it.

So let me see if I follow you here -- You are all for us (humanity) altering the Earth Eco system because it helps us now no matter what the consequences of that are down the road?

That is forgoing the fact that we don't know what the effects of global warming are nor how to stop/lessen them.

RichardR

26th September 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I think it does not really matter if WE are causing global warming. What matters is if it takes place or not.

We know what the effects of global warming will be if it takes place; these will be the same wether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles. The impact on humanity as a whole will be severe, if probably not fatal.

So, if global warming indeed takes place, we MUST find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it. If we don't know " whether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles", how can we " find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it"?

26th September 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
If we don't know " whether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles", how can we " find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it"?

Classic appeal to ignorance.

We DO know how to change the planet's albedo. Look at the debate in the volcano thread, after all.

There are, of course, other things that can be done, too.

Half, give or take, of humanity's ability to survive lies in adaptation. The other half is the ability to change or control their environment instead.

RichardR

26th September 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by jj
Classic appeal to ignorance.

We DO know how to change the planet's albedo. Look at the debate in the volcano thread, after all.

There are, of course, other things that can be done, too.

Half, give or take, of humanity's ability to survive lies in adaptation. The other half is the ability to change or control their environment instead. Misquoting fallacies only confuses people. An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. I was not placing the burden of proof on anyone, I was suggesting the solution could depend on the cause of the problem.

Are you seriously saying the solution is independent of the cause?

shanek

26th September 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I think it does not really matter if WE are causing global warming. What matters is if it takes place or not.

We know what the effects of global warming will be if it takes place; these will be the same wether they are caused by greenhouse gases or natural climate cycles. The impact on humanity as a whole will be severe, if probably not fatal.

So, if global warming indeed takes place, we MUST find a way to eliminate or at least lessen it.

Why? The warming trends leading to the Greek era and the Renaissance period didn't turn out that way.

Pyrian

26th September 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
Pyrian, take a look at the post above yours and tell me again how you know the ice is melting.The post above mine did not contest the assertion that large amounts of polar ice has melted. As long as its just sea ice, it has no effect on sea level.

The two largest land-ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland, BTW, and the Greenland sheet is likely to melt first.

Since I, personally, have collected no hard data on the subject, I defer to those who have.

With no further ado...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=15341

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/UoT-omic-2102101.php

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/97/nscatagu.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_168.html

26th September 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
Misquoting fallacies only confuses people. An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. I was not placing the burden of proof on anyone, I was suggesting the solution could depend on the cause of the problem.

Are you seriously saying the solution is independent of the cause?

In what sense? In some senses, yes.

Your interpretation of your own words, by the way, is rather astonishing. You might consider how you WERE placing the burden of proof on me, but then again, I would suggest that YOU brush up on your fallacies.

Now, to your ridiculous attack:

The problem: My 13 year old did not take out the garbage.
The solution: I took it out.

The problem and solution in this case are at least somewhat independent. Of course, since that attack is ill-considered, my reply need be such, because the meanings of problem and effect have been beggared here. starting with your misuse of them that was engendered by illicit assumptions.

The problem is said to be warming. A solution is KNOWN to be to increase albedo (in the proper way).

This means that the CAUSE of the warming may be entirely independent of the SOLUTION, which may be (used for example) rejecting some solar input.

But it does not mean that the "solution is independent of the problem". Implicit in your mistaken, ill-considered attack is the idea that we have to know WHY the temperature is rising before we do something about it, based on knowledge that we do have.

Obviously we do not have to know which of many effects is causing warming, if we do know that floating big mylar reflectors between the sun and us will (as it will) counter that warming. Your suggesting regarding "solution... problem" comment contains that element of mistakenness in it, by implication, and is therefore illicit and ill considered.

You, sir, are engaging in repeated exercises of fallacious reasoning, and I am getting quite tired of your superior, offensive yne of voice. Furthermore, your insistance that we MUST UNDERSTAND ALL before we do anything is simply an espousal of helplessness and inability to do anything, and we are not, bluntly put, in that situation.

26th September 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Why? The warming trends leading to the Greek era and the Renaissance period didn't turn out that way.

While I am not willing to attribute the greek and roman civilizations to warming, it is correct to question the statement that warming is catastrophic.

RUNAWAY warming is, of course. That, I will agree, is not demonstrated. We must, however, be very careful to watch for it, including during periods when an administration who holds all of science in contempt attempts to bury the results of scientific investigation into the problem.

shanek

26th September 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Pyrian
The two largest land-ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland, BTW, and the Greenland sheet is likely to melt first.

Greenland got its name because it was once, well, green. Maybe not as much as the southern climates, but the indications are that it's becoming again the land that Eric the Red spoke of so fondly. Why should I be concerned about the loss of ice that wasn't even there 1000 years ago?

shanek

26th September 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by jj
While I am not willing to attribute the greek and roman civilizations to warming,

I wasn't claiming any kind of causation. That's just when they happened. Although some scientists think that humans (and all other life forms) get more productive when the planet is in a warmer period.

RUNAWAY warming is, of course. That, I will agree, is not demonstrated. We must, however, be very careful to watch for it, including during periods when an administration who holds all of science in contempt attempts to bury the results of scientific investigation into the problem.

That's true, but since from what I've read about the previous warming trends what we're experiencing is neither out of line with them nor unexpected given the fact that we're stil coming out of the Little Ice Age, I really am cautious about taking any sort of preventative measures against anything. If we act before we know the consequences, we may not only be working to solve a problem that doesn't exist, we may actually make things worse for ourselves in many ways.

a_unique_person

26th September 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

As usual, you completely missed the point!

I know how much you and KOA love anecdotal evidence, but try rereading what I posted above about fallacies. Maybe you'll get it the second time around... :)

From www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Anecdotal evidence

You were the one supplying the anecdotes, I was replying to how they would fit in with GW. If you don't want me to reply to your use of anecdotes, don't use them.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 01:40 AM

Pardon the late response, I've been enjoying myself at the Scripp's centennial aniversary party.

Please forgive my rather blunt responses here, as I've inbibed more than a few glasses of the fermented hops.

I take great amusement at the responses here, they display a level of ignorance of almost biblical proportions.

Has it occurred, at all, to any of you, thay perhaps you have no idea, whatsoever, what the current research on this topic is? You are quoting second hand opinions of people that absolutely zero understanding of what the experts in the field really know. You are idiots referencing morons.

Oh sure, you talk of this 'Great Debate', yet you have no references, no cites, nothing at all to support these assertions.

Amongst the top tier of earth scientists, there is no debate. The warming trends of the last hundred years coincide directly with the huge increase of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. The only debate is amongst junk scientists eager to render this a political discussion, not a scientific one.

I could provide references and try to explain the science behind AGW, but really its a lost cause. No one here is interested in the truth, knowledge, science, or skepticism. You just want to reinforce your own petty belief systems. You are allergic to the reality that the study of science provides.

Of course you will deride me, after all, what do I know. Or what do individuals that have dedicated their lives to studying the science behind GW know.
Its nothining compared to the collective wisdom of anonymous internet nutballs.

a_unique_person

27th September 2003, 03:16 AM

I have a friend who works for the CSIRO Department of Atmospheric Research. I asked him if he wanted to help answer a few questions here, because we continually have these debates. He declined, because it was his experience that internet debates are a waste of time as everyone has already made up their mind.

I also started a thread many moons ago on whether we are all just wankers, and whether or not we can solve the issue of whether or not there is global warming or other issues. I do believe that it is not possible to understand the intricacies involved with just casual perusal of some internet web pages.

I think it is a good thing for us to debate such issues, but not to think that we can decide such matters using pure 'skepticism'. I am amused to find that Carl Sagan is referred to here as a good example of skeptical thinking, but I also not his concerns about the environment which I think many true 'skeptics' here treat derisively as pure greenie nonsense.

a_unique_person

27th September 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Greenland got its name because it was once, well, green. Maybe not as much as the southern climates, but the indications are that it's becoming again the land that Eric the Red spoke of so fondly. Why should I be concerned about the loss of ice that wasn't even there 1000 years ago?

Is this more of that 'we'll all just move to Greenland' rubbish, because if it is, I won't be very happy.

Greenland did not have sustained contact with Europeans until Eric the Red, the legendary Viking, used it as a home-away-from-home during his years of exile. It was Eric the Red who called the country Greenland but the naming proved to be more lyrical than factual; most of the time Greenland was anything but. This did not deter the boatload of Icelanders who promptly set about colonising the land and for a couple of centuries the colonists herded, farmed and hunted while the country slipped back into its usual comatose state. Norway got 'round to annexing the country in 1261, but it was a futile attempt at control; 130 years later a big chill set in and by the time the country thawed out and the outside world made contact again, the colonists had gone, either fully acculturated into, or killed by, the Thule.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/greenland/history.htm

RichardR

27th September 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by jj
In what sense? In some senses, yes.

Your interpretation of your own words, by the way, is rather astonishing. You might consider how you WERE placing the burden of proof on me, but then again, I would suggest that YOU brush up on your fallacies. No, you need to. The appeal to ignorance (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) is:
a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.So perhaps you could show me where I was placing a burden of proof on you for anything. I imagine you'll find that quite hard, since I wasn't even suggesting what the cause of warming was, ergo I could not have been placing the burden of proof on either side.

An appeal to ignorance would be to say that (for example) since there is no proof that CO2 causes warming then it must be all caused by the Sun. I merely suggested it would be good to find out what is causing GW. To anyone reading this who is confused by this – please read the full definition of appeal to ignorance. If you listen to jj you will never understand it.

Originally posted by jj
Now, to your ridiculous attack:

The problem: My 13 year old did not take out the garbage.
The solution: I took it out. Now to your ridiculous defense: FALSE ANALOGY. Global warming is as simple as taking out the garbage. Jesus. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jj
The problem and solution in this case are at least somewhat independent. Of course, since that attack is ill-considered, my reply need be such, because the meanings of problem and effect have been beggared here. starting with your misuse of them that was engendered by illicit assumptions.

The problem is said to be warming. A solution is KNOWN to be to increase albedo (in the proper way). Really? Who is planning this?

Originally posted by jj
Obviously we do not have to know which of many effects is causing warming, if we do know that floating big mylar reflectors between the sun and us will (as it will) counter that warming. Your suggesting regarding "solution... problem" comment contains that element of mistakenness in it, by implication, and is therefore illicit and ill considered. Tell that to the environmentalists who want to massively decrease CO2 emissions.

Originally posted by jj
You, sir, are engaging in repeated exercises of fallacious reasoning, and I am getting quite tired of your superior, offensive yne of voice. Furthermore, your insistance that we MUST UNDERSTAND ALL before we do anything is simply an espousal of helplessness and inability to do anything, and we are not, bluntly put, in that situation. You are tired of my superior offensive tone of voice? Wow, what a thin little skin we have. And what a hypocrite – just read your last post, probably the most superior and arrogant I have had directed at me for no reason in 2 years on this board. The difference is, I don't cry about it. I suggest you don't reply any more if you are that much of a baby.

shanek

27th September 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Has it occurred, at all, to any of you, thay perhaps you have no idea, whatsoever, what the current research on this topic is? You are quoting second hand opinions of people that absolutely zero understanding of what the experts in the field really know. You are idiots referencing morons.

Has it occured to you at all that we've already discussed this issue to death in other threads and don't feel like repeating ourselves to an obviously biased, vituperative person like you?

Oh sure, you talk of this 'Great Debate', yet you have no references, no cites, nothing at all to support these assertions.

Oh, really?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030916075425.htm

The importance of the tropics to global climate change is now seen as far more important than a decade ago, said Lea. Scientists are intrigued because the tropics used to be seen as "relatively passive" in global climate models. If the tropics are a cause or a trigger of climate change then their role becomes critical, according to Lea, and even if the tropics are an amplifier of changes that started elsewhere, then it is still scientifically important to understand how they play that role.

The Cariaco record indicates that three large, rapid shifts of five to seven degrees Fahrenheit occurred in the tropics on time scales of a century or less as the earth warmed at the end of the last ice age, between 14,600 and 11,400 years ago. Similar rapid climate shifts are well known from polar ice cores, but they represent a new discovery in the tropics.

"People used to think the tropics were relatively stable," said Lea. "A change of five to seven degrees is a very large difference. For one, it greatly influences how much moisture is held in the air."

The timing of the warming in the Cariaco record indicates that the changes were synchronous within 30 to 90 years with temperature and climate changes recorded in Greenland ice cores.

That's just from earlier this month, and it does show that the current warming trend is even more consistent with previous warming trends than was previously thought. The GW people have been saying all along that the variances in the tropics are unusual for coming out of an ice age; now, that no longer appears to be the case.

Try this one from last month:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030805072216.htm

"Warming accelerates evaporation, so we expected warmer to mean drier," said lead author Erika S. Zavaleta, a former Stanford doctoral student now on the faculty of the University of California-Santa Cruz. "We were surprised to find that warming actually increased moisture in our grassland plots during those critical weeks in late spring at the end of the growing season, when moisture shapes which plant species prevail. We traced this unexpected moisture increase to the plants themselves."

The study adds to a growing body of knowledge about the major role that plants can play in global warming, added co-author Christopher B. Field, a professor by courtesy of biological sciences at Stanford and director of the Carnegie Institution's Stanford-based Department of Global Ecology.

This was a big contention in previous threads because it was denied by the GW people that plants can have a reactive role in this way. Once again, us skeptics are vindicated.

Here's another fairly recent article:

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=149

These domestic calls for action echo a United Nations-sponsored worldwide plan, called the Kyoto Protocol. It requires signatories to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions based upon the notion that the Earth is dangerously warming.

The historical record -- both man and nature's -- doesn't support this view.

It is true that, according to thermometer measurements, the Earth was warmer by some 0.6 degrees Celsius at the end of the 20th Century than it was in the second half of the 19th. And because the 20th Century also coincided with an increased concentration of human-made greenhouse gases in the air, it may be argued that the 20th Century's warmth -- and future global warming -- was and will be caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels.

But to get a proper estimate of the amount of human-made global warming a demonstration is required that the 20th Century actually was unusually warm, and that the 19th Century was normal. Were they?

To find the answer, we must go back several centuries to a period when the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from human activities was minimal. At that time, the instrumentally measured record of global temperature change was insufficient to detail climate's natural fluctuations, as the record dates only to the mid-19th Century.

Nature's record, however, goes back much further.

[skipping ahead a bit]

And a recent review ( http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html) by a team from Harvard University, of more than 240 scientific articles by over 1,000 researchers using the various proxy data shows that the climate in most locations was not extreme or unusual during the 20th Century. Instead, the warmest, or most extreme, climate for those locations occurred in the Medieval Warm Period, between the 9th and 14th centuries.

That period of extreme climate -- long before the air's increase in greenhouse gas concentration from human activities -- must have natural explanations. Whatever they are, the results of the warming, as far as man was concerned, in most cases appear to have been more beneficial than dangerous. Vikings made their way to Greenland and Newfoundland in that period. And England had productive vineyards.

H.H. Lamb, the founder of the climatic research unit at East Anglia University, found that England's climate was warm enough in the 12th and 13th centuries to support more than 50 vineyards, signifying that May frosts were rare. But natural swings in climate ended that environment, beginning with a period known as the Little Ice Age, lasting about from 1300 to 1900 C.E., during which Europe had more acute winters. The intensity of the Little Ice Age reached its peak from 1550 to 1700, bringing crop failures, disease and death. Many died of famine in Scotland during crop failures in seven of eight years at the end of the 18th Century.

That the last millennium has seen periods warmer than the 20th Century in many parts of the world where there is information means that the 20th Century was not unusual. Meanwhile, the 19th Century, where thermometer records begin, seems to have been the tail of an unusual cold period that had persisted for some centuries, perhaps as far back as the 14th Century in some areas. It was not so normal.

The scientific history drawn from nature and man's observations over the last millennium suggests that a strong trend of human-induced warming does not exist. The scientific facts indicate that costly policies to combat global warming are unlikely to mitigate any of climate's ever-present natural risks, but they could reduce society's economic ability to cope with them.

That's from July. Of this year. And since you seem to be the argument-from-authority type, it's from someone Discover magazine called, "one of America's outstanding women scientists."

Amongst the top tier of earth scientists, there is no debate.

Bull$#!7. There is always debate in science.

The warming trends of the last hundred years coincide directly with the huge increase of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution.

And it coincides with an 800-year lag after the start of the warming trend leading to the Medieval Warm Period, which is exactly what we see when looking at the patterns of previous warming trends.

Do none of these "top-tier" scientists realize that correlation does not mean causation?

Here's a couple more very recent (this month) articles. The first talks about how the warm summer in Europe doesn't have anything to do with human activity, a view pretty much held by all meteorologists in contrast to what the GW people have been claiming (q_u_p, in fact, made that very same claim in this forum):

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/jet.htm

And here's another recent article showing how solar activity has an effect on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which can easily explain the current trend in rising CO2 levels, going against not only the claims of most GW advocates but the very claim you implied in your above post!

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm

But I guess it placates your ego more to troll and insult people and make yourself feel so high and mighty, pretending that all of the data is on your side and everyone else is stupid and retarded and any of the other insults you hurl at people who have the audacity to contradict the word of the great EvilYeti!

[Edited to add a link I missed]

shanek

27th September 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have a friend who works for the CSIRO Department of Atmospheric Research. I asked him if he wanted to help answer a few questions here, because we continually have these debates. He declined, because it was his experience that internet debates are a waste of time as everyone has already made up their mind.

Yes, you've used this excuse before. You also refused our requests to relay questions to him and post his answers here on his behalf. So, on a skeptics' board, the above claim means exactly zilch.

I am amused to find that Carl Sagan is referred to here as a good example of skeptical thinking, but I also not his concerns about the environment which I think many true 'skeptics' here treat derisively as pure greenie nonsense.

And I am amused at your argument from "authority," based on nothing more than a well-respected name, who was actually an astronomer commenting outside of his field, while at the same time being one of those who derides many of the others expressing skepticism since they're not experts on climatology. Hypocrisy, thy name is a_u_p!

shanek

27th September 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is this more of that 'we'll all just move to Greenland' rubbish, because if it is, I won't be very happy.

No, and since I made my argument directly in my post, this is just another evasion on your part.

I ask again: Why should I be concerned with the loss of ice that wasn't even there 1000 years ago?

Dymanic

27th September 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I ask again: Why should I be concerned with the loss of ice that wasn't even there 1000 years ago?
A lot of stuff wasn't there 1000 years ago.

A lot depends on what kind of time frame the melting occurs on (since sunlight reflected by ice is a significant factor in global temperature, the process tends to ...well, snowball).

Complete melting of the Greenland ice sheets would result in a rise in sea level on the order of about six and a half meters -- but of course, if Greenland ice is melting, so is ice elsewhere. If it all melts, we're talking sea level increases of over eighty meters.

I guess a lot depends on where you live.

figures from usgs (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/)

Chaos

27th September 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

A lot of stuff wasn't there 1000 years ago.

A lot depends on what kind of time frame the melting occurs on (since sunlight reflected by ice is a significant factor in global temperature, the process tends to ...well, snowball).

Complete melting of the Greenland ice sheets would result in a rise in sea level on the order of about six and a half meters -- but of course, if Greenland ice is melting, so is ice elsewhere. If it all melts, we're talking sea level increases of over eighty meters.

I guess a lot depends on where you live.

figures from usgs (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/)

Remember also that a warmer climate means more lively weather, meaning tornados, hurricanes and all that. If I recall the reinsurances´ statistics (they keep notes, because they pay for such desasters) correctly, they have already been increasing during the last decades. You´ve just had a hurricane on the U.S. East Coast; imagine having them more often, and then think again if this really doesn´t concern you.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Has it occured to you at all that we've already discussed this issue to death in other threads and don't feel like repeating ourselves to an obviously biased, vituperative person like you?

And yet you still provide nothing. Ho completely unsurprising.

Oh, really?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030916075425.htm

This has nothing to do with global warming, its discussing localized temperature patterns in the tropics. I see your lack of reading comprehension skills applies to the earth sciences as well.

That's just from earlier this month, and it does show that the current warming trend is even more consistent with previous warming trends than was previously thought. The GW people have been saying all along that the variances in the tropics are unusual for coming out of an ice age; now, that no longer appears to be the case.

Liar. Provide evidence that any of the top GW researchers have made that assertion or retract you accusation. Maybe some of the "greenies" said that, buy they, like you, aint scientists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030805072216.htm
This was a big contention in previous threads because it was denied by the GW people that plants can have a reactive role in this way. Once again, us skeptics are vindicated.

You are not a skeptic and as usual the above article does nothing to vindicate your position. The whole point of the article is that AGW, which they are saying exists, has some effects that run counter to many popular assumptions. Again you talk about "GW people", who are these people? Scientists? Hippies? Don't confuse the greenies with the people actually doing the research.

Here's another fairly recent article:

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=149

Oh great, more conservative propaganda. If you knew anything at all about the current research, you would know that we are on a natural warming trend that is being greatly amplified by greenhouse gas emissions. The rate at which the climate warmed over the last 100 years is unheard of in our natural history. The article is a work of fiction.

That's from July. Of this year. And since you seem to be the argument-from-authority type, it's from someone Discover magazine called, "one of America's outstanding women scientists."

What she is discussing has nothing to do with AGW. The article you reference is not from a science journal and is nothing more than righ-wing propaganda. Which in your eyes is apparently indistinguishable from scientific research.

Bull$#!7. There is always debate in science.

There is debate, you just don't know what it is, because you are willfully ignorant. The current debate is what the long-term effects of global warming are going to be, not whether it exists or not.

And it coincides with an 800-year lag after the start of the warming trend leading to the Medieval Warm Period, which is exactly what we see when looking at the patterns of previous warming trends.

You are lying again. No one is claiming we aren't on a warming trend. What is of concern is that the clilmate has warmend MUCH MORE in the last 100 then ever before.

Do none of these "top-tier" scientists realize that correlation does not mean causation?

Do you not understand that correlation CAN mean causation? Or are you saying you know more about GW then someone like Charles Keeling, who has studied it his ENTIRE career?

Here's a couple more very recent (this month) articles. The first talks about how the warm summer in Europe doesn't have anything to do with human activity, a view pretty much held by all meteorologists in contrast to what the GW people have been claiming (q_u_p, in fact, made that very same claim in this forum):

These articles are all total, complete bullcrap. They come from biased, non-scietific sources. They are less then worthless. LInk to something from "Science" or "Nature", not propaganda.

So your idea of a GW person is aup. Funny. My idea of a "GW person" is someone like Charles Keeling, whom has been studying the topic for decades.

Anyone pointing to one season as evidence for or against AGW is full of crap. No serious research is going to make that argument. Stop building strawmen.

And here's another recent article showing how solar activity has an effect on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which can easily explain the current trend in rising CO2 levels, going against not only the claims of most GW advocates but the very claim you implied in your above post!

Wah hah hah!!! You are actually stupid enough to reference Landscheidt??? How freaking clueless can you be man?
The guy is an astrologer and numerologist, not a scientist! Not a single reputable journal will publish his garbage.
You really can't tell the difference between real science and junk science, can you?
Who are you going to reference next, Uri Gellar?

But I guess it placates your ego more to troll and insult people and make yourself feel so high and mighty, pretending that all of the data is on your side and everyone else is stupid and retarded and any of the other insults you hurl at people who have the audacity to contradict the word of the great EvilYeti!

Since you reference astrologers in a science discussion, I feel that is ample evidence that you are stupid and retarded. Does anyone here feel otherwise?

shanek

27th September 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
Remember also that a warmer climate means more lively weather, meaning tornados, hurricanes and all that. If I recall the reinsurances´ statistics (they keep notes, because they pay for such desasters) correctly, they have already been increasing during the last decades. You´ve just had a hurricane on the U.S. East Coast; imagine having them more often, and then think again if this really doesn´t concern you.

I'm sorry, but this is just more bet-hedging from the GW side. Just like a "psychic": You predict so many things that a few of them are bound to end up being correct, and you hope people will not noticed the other, failed predictions.

The GW people predict warmer weather, colder weather, I even heard one talk about "excessively moderate temperatures." More storms mean GW. Fewer storms mean GW. Decreasing Antarctic ice means GW. Increasing Antarctic ice means GW. They've set it up so they can't lose.

Meanwhile, the previous predictions haven't come about, such as the temperature increasing in the troposphere first. But the troposphere isn't warming; it's surface temperatures that are warming. The "response" of the GW people are to pretend that that's what they were talking about the whole time, in classic 1984 fashion. Meanwhile, GW skeptics like the guy who predicted the recent El Niño have their predictions bourne out, after which the GW people just pretend they predicted it after all.

And you people wonder why we're skeptical!

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Meanwhile, GW skeptics like the guy who predicted the recent El Niño have their predictions bourne out, after which the GW people just pretend they predicted it after all.

Landscheidt is an astrologer, not a skeptic or scientist. Why do you keep referencing him?

Oh yeah, you are retarded.

Chaos

27th September 2003, 12:34 PM

Dear shanek,

I think the picture will become clearer when you listen only to the real scientists. Blank out those industry lobby employees, astrologers and others like that for a while.

You will get a relatively clear "if X, then Y, if not, then Z" scenario. It says less ice, rising sea level, rising average temperatures, more storms.

shanek

27th September 2003, 12:40 PM

Now watch, everyone, how the GW woo-woo refuses to discuss the data and instead insults the sources:

Originally posted by EvilYeti
This has nothing to do with global warming, its discussing localized temperature patterns in the tropics.

But it is data which refutes the predictions of the GW crowd, as I explained. Funny how you don't want to comment on that...

Liar. Provide evidence that any of the top GW researchers have made that assertion or retract you accusation.

The evidence is in the article itself, if you'd bother to read it. But then, you probably just redefine them out of your "top" category ("No true Scotsman" fallacy).

You are not a skeptic and as usual the above article does nothing to vindicate your position.

Yes, it does. Your usual tactic of just pretending otherwise just does not fly on a skeptic board.

Oh great, more conservative propaganda.

Oh great, more bigoted attacking of the source to avoid talking about the data.

The rate at which the climate warmed over the last 100 years is unheard of in our natural history.

No, it isn't. It matches almost precisely the warming trend leading to the Medieval Warm Period.

What she is discussing has nothing to do with AGW.

Deny, deny, deny. If someone's not a "scientist" (by YOUR definition), you dismiss them. If even you cannot deny that they're a scientist, you say it's "propaganda."

So, why do you think a POLITICAL entity like the IPCC, NONE OF WHOM ARE SCIENTISTS (although they do hire scientists just like private institutions like the Marshall Institute do), is immune from propaganda?

There is debate, you just don't know what it is, because you are willfully ignorant. The current debate is what the long-term effects of global warming are going to be, not whether it exists or not.

YOU are the one being wilfully ignorant. You're also lying when you imply that I'm arguing against evidence the current warming trend. As I've said very clearly, the point of contention is how much, if any, humans are contributing to it and what harm, if any, will come from it.

But I guess it's just easier to lie about what your opponent says than to actually consider that he may have a point.

You are lying again.

No, I'm not. The data clearly show increasing CO2 trends 800 years after the start of warming trends.

No one is claiming we aren't on a warming trend.

Correct; so why do you keep blathering on about it?

What is of concern is that the clilmate has warmend MUCH MORE in the last 100 then ever before.

Again, according to the data, it hasn't. It's almost a perfect match for the warming leading up to the MWP.

These articles are all total, complete bullcrap. They come from biased, non-scietific sources. They are less then worthless.

Your steadfast dishonesty is simply mind-boggling...

Anyone pointing to one season as evidence for or against AGW is full of crap. No serious research is going to make that argument. Stop building strawmen.

I'm not. These are ACTUAL arguments that have ACTUALLY been made.

Wah hah hah!!! You are actually stupid enough to reference Landscheidt??? How freaking clueless can you be man?
The guy is an astrologer and numerologist, not a scientist!

He IS a scientist, and quite a reputable one in the field of solar activity. He was the one I mentioned earlier who successfully predicted the El Niño the GW scientists said wouldn't happen. Here's where he predicted it:

http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

And it happened, just like he said. Just as his belief in the Steady State Theory didn't void Sir Fred Hoyle's other amazing contributions to science, whatever other beliefs Landscheidt may have (which you give only your word for, which doesn't mean crap) doesn't detract from the data you're so desperately avoiding having to deal with.

Not a single reputable journal will publish his garbage.

Except, of course, for Proceedings of the 1st Solar & Space Weather Euroconference, Journal of Coastal Research, Climatic Change, Solar Physics, special publications by the European Space Agency and NASA, Energy and Environment...

As always, you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a pathetic little troll who does not wish to discuss the data at all; merely belittle those who disagree with you in order to placate your bloated ego.

shanek

27th September 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I think the picture will become clearer when you listen only to the real scientists.

:rolleyes:

Science doesn't work by authority, people. Only through a serious and corageous acceptance of the facts regardless of what we want to believe.

I don't have any problems whatsoever with any actial scientists studying this field; I do have a problem with those who pretend that GW is human caused and is a major problem when the data clearly doesn't show any convincing evidence that this is the case.

shanek

27th September 2003, 01:36 PM

I just went and dug up some sources I had used for other GW threads awhile back dealing with experiments in NC and FL with loblolly pines. A control group of pines in each area was kept at a normal level of CO2 concentration (350ppm) and the experimental group was elevated to 560ppm.

Not only did the pines absorb much of the excess CO2, their rooting was enhanced by 16%, they were better able to acquire essential nutrients, they reproduced in numbers consistent with 15 years of fertilization treatment, grew more densely, produced more seeds, the germination rate of the seeds increased, the rate of photosynthesis increased 65% (with no corresponding drop in water consumption), and on the whole it meant really, really good things for the trees. Other experiments in Sweden and elsewhere validated this, and experiments with other kinds of plants showed similar effects.

Not only does this take a lot of the bluster out of the threats of increased CO2 output by humans and other factors, it also takes the steam out og the "CO2 is a pollutant" argument. You'd also think that increasing CO2 concentration would be a good thing to those environmentalists going on and on about deforestation.

Fransson, P.M.A., A.F.S. Taylor, and R.D. Finlay, 2001. "Elevated atmospheric CO2 alters root symbiont community structure in forest trees." New Phytologist, 152.

Hussain, M., M.E. Kubiske, and K.F Connor, 2001. "Germination of CO2 -enriched Pinus taeda L. seeds and subsequent seedling growth responses to CO2 enrichment." Functional Ecology, 15.

Pritchard, S.G., H.H. Rogers, M.A. Davis, E. van Santen, S.A. Prior, and Schlesinger. 2001. "The influence of elevated atmospheric CO2 on fine root dynamics in an intact temperate forest." Global Change Biology, 7.

Tangley, L. 2001. "High CO2 levels may give fast-growing trees an edge." Science 292.

Gavazzi, M., Seiler, J., Aust, W., and Zedaker, S. 2000. "The influence of elevated carbon dioxide and water availability on herbaceous weed development and growth of transplanted loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)." Environmental and Experimental Botany, 44.

Griffin, K.L., Tissue, D.T., Turnbull, M.H., and Whitehead, D. 2000. "The onset of photosynthetic acclimation to elevated CO2 partial pressure in field-grown Pinus radiata D. Don. after 4 years." Plant, Cell and Environment, 23.

Walker, R.F., Johnson, D.W., Geisinger, D.R., and Ball, J.T. 2000. "Growth, nutrition, and water relations of ponderosa pine in a field soil as influenced by long-term exposure to elevated atmospheric CO2." Forest Ecology and Management, 137.

Ainsworth, E.A., Davey, P.A., Hymus, G.J., Osborne, C.P., Rogers, A., Blum, H., Nosberger, J. and Long, S.P. 2003. "Is stimulation of leaf photosynthesis by elevated carbon dioxide concentration maintained in the long term? A test with Lolium perenne grown for 10 years at two nitrogen fertilization levels under Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE)." Plant, Cell and Environment 26.

Idso, S.B. and Kimball, B.A. 2001. "CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 13 years and counting." Environmental and Experimental Botany 46.

Luo, Y.Q. and Reynolds, J.F. 1999. "Validity of extrapolating field CO2 experiments to predict carbon sequestration in natural ecosystems." Ecology 80.

Roumet, C., Garnier, E., Suzor, H., Salager, J.-L. and Roy, J. 2000. "Short and long-term responses of whole-plant gas exchange to elevated CO2 in four herbaceous species." Environmental and Experimental Botany 43

Niklaus, P.A., Wohlfender, M., Siegwolf, R. and Korner, C. 2001. "Effects of six years atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant, soil, and soil microbial C of a calcareous grassland." Plant and Soil 233.

Whether the GW people want to admit it or not, there is a ton of evidence that plants do play a reactive role to increasing CO2 concentrations with beneficial results.

shanek

27th September 2003, 01:51 PM

Here are some good sources on the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as compared to the current climate trend, as welll as the Holocene period leading up to human civilization:

Broecker, W. 1999. "Climate change prediction." Science 283.

Broecker, W.S. 2001. "Glaciers That Speak in Tongues and other tales of global warming." Natural History 110 (8): 60-69.

McManus, J.F., Oppo, D.W. and Cullen, J.L. 1999. "A 0.5-million-year record of millennial-scale climate variability in the North Atlantic." Science 283.

Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998. "Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North Atlantic sediments." Science 279.

Soon, W. and Baliunas, S. 2003. "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years." Climate Research 23.

The current climate trend, according to this data, may not even be as severe as previous warming trends in either extent or speed of any quantifiable variables.

Chaos

27th September 2003, 02:05 PM

Hello?

Remember Biology 101?

Trees "feed" off CO², of course they get better if there´s more of it. The reason why there fewer and fewer trees is not lack of CO²; neither is lack of trees the reason for global warming.

The reasons why forests diminish are:

- extensive logging
- clearing agricultural area by burning down jungle
- acid rain

The main reason for global warming is the greenhouse effect. That is, CO² and other gases (methane for example) "trap" the infrared in the atmosphere.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Not only did the pines absorb much of the excess CO2, their rooting was enhanced by 16%, they were better able to acquire essential nutrients, they reproduced in numbers consistent with 15 years of fertilization treatment, grew more densely, produced more seeds, the germination rate of the seeds increased, the rate of photosynthesis increased 65% (with no corresponding drop in water consumption), and on the whole it meant really, really good things for the trees. Other experiments in Sweden and elsewhere validated this, and experiments with other kinds of plants showed similar effects.

So? Plants die without CO2. Carbohydrates in plants are built up from the carbon they absorb. This is extremely well known.

Everyone knows plants absorb CO2. The question is, can the planet's vegatation keep up with the CO2 output?

shanek

27th September 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
Hello?

Remember Biology 101?

Trees "feed" off CO², of course they get better if there´s more of it. The reason why there fewer and fewer trees is not lack of CO²; neither is lack of trees the reason for global warming.

That isn't the point. The point is that the GW side largely ignores and even flat-out denies the stabilizing effect plants have on increasing CO2 concentration levels. Not only do the individual plants absorb more, they reproduce more quickly and grow more in places where they had difficulty before, resulting in overall greater numbers.

There's just no reason to think that these levels will continue in a runaway fashion until our planet turns into Venus (a favorite comparison of the aforementioned Carl Sagan).

LucyR

27th September 2003, 02:21 PM

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by shanek

He IS a scientist, and quite a reputable one in the field of solar activity. He was the one I mentioned earlier who successfully predicted the El Niño the GW scientists said wouldn't happen. Here's where he predicted it:

http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

And it happened, just like he said. Just as his belief in the Steady State Theory didn't void Sir Fred Hoyle's other amazing contributions to science, whatever other beliefs Landscheidt may have (which you give only your word for, which doesn't mean crap) doesn't detract from the data you're so desperately avoiding having to deal with.

THEODOR LANDSCHEIDT, Dr.Phil.: Born 1927.March.10 at 18h08 MET [UT+1h] in Bremen, Germany, 53n05 x 08e49 (AS 18VI24) from the Taeger Archives via personal statement from Dr Landscheidt. Dr Landscheidt did much to bring new scientific discoveries into astrology, including research on the Galactic Center and Transpluto. His most outstanding English language work is Cosmic Cybernetics.

source (http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/diramast.htm)

Landscheidt is an astrologer/numerologer fraud, not a scientist and his ElNino theories are bogus as well. No climatologist takes his work seriously. He's a crank of the highest order and ANYTHING he produces is EXTREMELY suspect. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone in this day and age to think astrology is a legitimate discipline. The fact that John Daly thinks his garbage is science make anything off of his web site suspect as well.

The fact you continue to reference Landscheidt after it has been demonstrated to you that he is a crank speaks legion about your utter lack of any sort of scientific knowledge, understanding or integrity. You cherry pick anyone who supports your libertarian nonsense, regardless of their credentials, and reject the true authorities in the field. You are a liar and a fraud of the highest order.

You have nothing of substance to present, so you fall back on biased propaganda and woo-woo nonsense. You have no data, only empty, baseless assertions. Repeated ad nauseum.

If you want to see what real research looks like, read the following paper:

Thompson, D. J., 1995. The seasons, global temperature, and precession, Science, 268, 59-68.

Synopsis:

David Thompson (a time series specialist) analyzed temperature data going back to the 17th century to try to find a link with solar variability.

_ He reasoned that if the sun gets brighter it should affect both summer and winter temperatures. But since more solar radiation is received during summers, the summers should warm up more than the winters. In other words, stronger sun implies stronger seasonal cycle.

_ He compared the record with this, and found that the seasonal cycle had actually decreased in the last few hundred years.

This analyses revealed startling results about the nature of the seasonal cycle.

» In many places the seasonal cycle has been timed by the precession effect! In other places it has not.
» The analyses also showed that since the 1940s this timing of the seasonal cycle was completely changed!

Both the above point to CO2 as the culprit, not the sun.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That isn't the point. The point is that the GW side largely ignores and even flat-out denies the stabilizing effect plants have on increasing CO2 concentration levels. Not only do the individual plants absorb more, they reproduce more quickly and grow more in places where they had difficulty before, resulting in overall greater numbers.

Not according to this (http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030805072216.htm)

In the past year, Jasper Ridge scientists have reported other discoveries that run counter to widely held assumptions about global climate change. In a Dec. 2002 study in the journal Science, Field, Zavaleta and their colleagues discovered that excess atmospheric CO2 can retard plant growth instead of increasing it. And in a PNAS study published in June, the researchers found that excess CO2, nitrogen and water caused a significant reduction in the diversity of plant species.

Do you realize you provided this reference earlier in the thread, one which says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are now claiming?

Do you even READ what you link to?

Why do you keep providing references that say the exact opposite of what you are claiming? Are you retarded?

shanek

27th September 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
They deny it?!! I don't believe you.

Their whole entire point, everything about how they're saying humans are causing or at least contributing to Global Warming, rests on the idea that our CO2 emissions are contributing to an increased Greenhouse Effect. To support this, they projected a particular rise in the levels of CO2 concentrations which have not bourne out; the IPCC's computer forecasting models, for example, did not take into account this effect (and, to my knowledge, have not yet been updated to do so) and so the rate of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is actually slowing down, something not predicted by the models. Just go talk to anyone who owns a greenhouse if you want to know how quickly plants can suck CO2 out of the air.

But many GW scientists dismiss this, such as Jeffery Richey who actually published a paper in volume 416 of Nature saying that increased forestation actually increases CO2 in the atmosphere! And several others are predicting massive loss of forests due to Global Warming! They say that the increased temperatures will cause trees and other foliage to die out while ignoring that these very plants will absorb much of the extra CO2 that would cause that warning to begin with, and this is actually the official stance of the IPCC. And Michael Benton is calling this a "global emergency."

They also are working hard to have CO2 classified as a pollutant, something which in light of the above information is patently absurd. And yet, Bush has come under fire for saying that very thing, even though it's one of the few things his administration has actually got right!

shanek

27th September 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by LucyR

So? Plants die without CO2. Carbohydrates in plants are built up from the carbon they absorb. This is extremely well known.

Everyone knows plants absorb CO2.

Apparently, EvilYeti doesn't. Check out his above post.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by LucyR

Everyone knows plants absorb CO2. The question is, can the planet's vegatation keep up with the CO2 output?

This is known as the "Keeling curve"

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig01.gif

The next problem was to figure out why the carbon dioxide varied the way it did during the year (i.e. the little squiggles). Was it processes on land, having to do with plant growth? Or did it come from the ocean? There are ways to distinguish between the two possibilities, and the answer is that the little squiggles in the Keeling curve are actually due to land plants. Since most of the land is in the northern hemisphere, the fluctuations are greatest there. (If the ocean were to blame, we should see a larger effect in the southern hemisphere.) Every spring, when trees leaf out and grasslands and farmlands green, the carbon dioxide in the air decreases, reflecting the uptake from photosynthesis. Conversely, in fall, when leaves and wilted plants are returned to the soil and decay, the carbon dioxide rises again. Thus, one can envision the Earth “breathing” on an annual cycle, and we can measure how deeply.

So in a nutshell, the little squiggles are due to plants and the upward trend is due to us.

So to answer your question, no the planet can not "keep up" with our CO2 output.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 02:53 PM

Well, it seem reasonable that there must be an optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth. It also seems reasonable that above that concentration we can expect ill-effects.

shanek

27th September 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Do you realize you provided this reference earlier in the thread, one which says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are now claiming?

YOU ARE A FILTHY F*CKING LIAR!!!!

I specifically presented that link to refute YOUR claim that there was no debate—and that link specifically says that the role of the tropics in the global climate has been greater than was predicted! It WAS NOT AND WAS NEVER presented by me as evidence regarding the absorbtion of CO2 by plants AND YOU F*CKING WELL KNOW IT!!! :mad:

You are a TROLL and you are a LIAR.

shanek

27th September 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So in a nutshell, the little squiggles are due to plants and the upward trend is due to us.

Then how do you explain similar rising trends in CO2 concentration before humans ever thought about bruning fossil fuels?

So to answer your question, no the planet can not "keep up" with our CO2 output.

Why not? It kept up before when that output was at the same levels but certainly not due to human influence (mostly volcanic output).

See, THIS is the point of contention. It doesn't have anything to do with the data; it has to do with these amazing leaps and assumptions that do not follow directly from the data, and that is contradicted by the data from previous warming trends.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Apparently, EvilYeti doesn't. Check out his above post.

To be honest, I didn't actually get that from his post. Surely nobody denies photosynthesis. Of course, plants also respire. Perhaps under certain conditions, a forest can produce a net increase in CO2. I don’t know. My knowledge stops at high school biology.

shanek

27th September 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
Well, it seem reasonable that there must be an optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth. It also seems reasonable that above that concentration we can expect ill-effects.

That would seem reasonable to me, too; but:

1) Many things that "seem" reasonable turn out to be untrue, and

2) It is apparent from looking at the data from previous warming trends that the current increases in CO2 concentrations do not exceed this optimum level, whatever it might be.

See, these are the questions that people need to answer if they want to convince people like me that GW is human-induced and a problem that we should act to prevent.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

This is known as the "Keeling curve"

Interesting. Thanks for that.

shanek

27th September 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
Surely nobody denies photosynthesis. Of course, plants also respire. Perhaps under certain conditions, a forest can produce a net increase in CO2. I don’t know. My knowledge stops at high school biology.

Of course if anyone has any actual evidence of that then it must be considered. But the number of studies showing the opposite to be the case are, from what I've seen, overwhelming enough to hold any such evidence to a high standard.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek

YOU ARE A FILTHY F*CKING LIAR!!!!

Whassa matter, baby not get his bottle?

I specifically presented that link to refute YOUR claim that there was no debate—and that link specifically says that the role of the tropics in the global climate has been greater than was predicted! It WAS NOT AND WAS NEVER presented by me as evidence regarding the absorbtion of CO2 by plants AND YOU F*CKING WELL KNOW IT!!! :mad:

So the part that agrees with you right and the part the disagrees is wrong. Nice tautology. Is the refenence valid or not? You can't have it both ways.
And you are lying again about what my original claim was, I said the debate as to whether whether AGW is real or not is settled. Your reference does nothing to refute that.

You are a TROLL and you are a LIAR.

You are a drooling retard.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 03:26 PM

Another GW debate goes belly-up!:D

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Then how do you explain similar rising trends in CO2 concentration before humans ever thought about bruning fossil fuels?

There aren't any, you are making that up, as usual. Here's proof
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

Thats from the last 1000 years. Why do you think the CO2 levels shot up right at the industrial revolution? Maybe because we were dumpling billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year?

If you have any evidence of a similar rise in a hundred year period, by all means present it. Until then, shut yer pie hole. We have no interest in more of you baseless assertions.

Why not? It kept up before when that output was at the same levels but certainly not due to human influence (mostly volcanic output).

Wrong, human emissions dwarf volcanic emissions. Cite:

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. "

As usual you are completely and totally wrong, about everything, again. Don't you ever get tired of that?

See, THIS is the point of contention. It doesn't have anything to do with the data; it has to do with these amazing leaps and assumptions that do not follow directly from the data, and that is contradicted by the data from previous warming trends.

There is only contention if you replace real data and research for crackpots and ficticious nonsense. Why are you so adamant about rejecting scientific data? Oh yeah, its contrary to your Libertarian religion.

Dymanic

27th September 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The point is that the GW side largely ignores and even flat-out denies the stabilizing effect plants have on increasing CO2 concentration levels. Not only do the individual plants absorb more, they reproduce more quickly and grow more in places where they had difficulty before, resulting in overall greater numbers.
You know, you're right. This could be a boon to agriculture. It could also have tremendous benefits for the fishing industry, what with the rising sea level and all -- all those submerged structures will make terrific artificial reefs, too; the fish will thrive! Silly of "the GW side" not to have thought of that.

shanek

27th September 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So the part that agrees with you right and the part the disagrees is wrong. Nice tautology.

No, that source was brought up for one reason and one reason only. Attempting to ascribe other purposes behind my posting it is dishonest in the extreme.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, the proper recourse would be to clarify your comment and point out how I had misunderstood it. But you didn't do that; you instead chose to deliberately ascribe a purpose to my posting it that was clearly never my intention. That's not debating honestly.

shanek

27th September 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
There aren't any, you are making that up, as usual. Here's proof

Thats from the last 1000 years.

Yes, which does not cover the peropd 120,000 years ago which saw CO2 rise to the same level it was presently. Your graph also does not show the steady rise in CO2 over the last 18,000 years, climbing back to the levels it was before.

Why do you think the CO2 levels shot up right at the industrial revolution? Maybe because we were dumpling billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year?

Again, correlation ≠ causation. I gave you two other correlations; you must show why your correlation means a cause and these others don't.

Wrong, human emissions dwarf volcanic emissions.

Not in the period I'm talking about. There were no such emissions by humans 18,000 years ago. Once again, you're dishonestly shifting the argument around.

shanek

27th September 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
Another GW debate goes belly-up!:D

Check out the earlier ones from a couple of years ago (if they haven't been purged from the database, that is). They were excellent threads with a lot of real information posted from both sides.

BobK

27th September 2003, 06:00 PM

Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on Earth with an estimated volume of 9,600 cubic miles (40,000 cubic kilometers). It makes half of the area of the Island of Hawaii. Mauna Loa began to form nearly a million years ago. There is a caldera, Mokuaweoweo, at the summit and rift zones extend to the northeast and southwest. Mauna Loa is in the shield-building stage and is one of the most active volcanoes on Earth, erupting 15 times since 1900. The last eruption was in 1984 and sent lavas within 4 miles (6.5 km) of Hilo. This photograph looks to the southwest to the northeast rift of Mauna Loa. Volcano Village is in the foreground. The summit of Kilauea volcano is left of center. Photograph by J.D. Griggs, U.S. Geological Survey, January 10, 1985.

Talk about a worthless graph! :rolleyes:

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, which does not cover the peropd 120,000 years ago which saw CO2 rise to the same level it was presently.

You are wrong, again. As usual.
The current CO2 concentration is 360 ppmvm, higher than anything seen in the last 200,000 years. Are you just making up stuff now?

Your graph also does not show the steady rise in CO2 over the last 18,000 years, climbing back to the levels it was before.

Wrong. See above.
Find one reference that shows a rate of increase anything like what we have seen in the last two hundred years. Until then you have nothing but empty assertions.

Again, correlation ≠ causation. I gave you two other correlations; you must show why your correlation means a cause and these others don't.

No, you are making the ludicrious claim that huge spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere durning the last two hundred years are due to something other than human emissions. Humans dump 5+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The burnden of proof is on you to provide evidence of natural sources that overwhelm that contribution. You will have to find natural processes that are producing hundreds of billions of tons. Should be no problem if the are real, correct?

Not in the period I'm talking about. There were no such emissions by humans 18,000 years ago. Once again, you're dishonestly shifting the argument around.

There is no evidence anywhere that the rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 200 years has any precedent. It is unique in the history of the earth. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by BobK

Talk about a worthless graph! :rolleyes:

Are you claiming the Keeling data is worthless? How are you qualified to make such a statement?

dsm

27th September 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Drooper

This is a well known myth.

There are well documented tidal records covering thise region. None show rising tides.

Hmmm. That chart, on it's own, is misleading. The report (http://www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/TEXT/NEWS/tuvalu.pdf) that that chart comes from (as well as other reports (http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf) ) seems to suggest that, although the data upon which it is derived relatively short, a cautious estimate of 0.8mm+/-1.9mm / year is actually happening. From other reports (http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2003/2003-07-19.htm), it certainly seems like the tidal problem is significant enough that the government of Tuvalu has already evacuated some 3000 islanders to other countries and is planning to do more.

That's not to say that this is due to global warming, but the numbers are similar in magnitude to the IPCC predictions below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001wg1/small/04.03.jpg

dsm

27th September 2003, 06:47 PM

BobK

27th September 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Are you claiming the Keeling data is worthless? How are you qualified to make such a statement?

I was simply trying to show that the readings for that graph were taken from around the world's largest, and one of it's most active volcanos. Do you think that is likely to be a fair representation of world?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by BobK

I was simply trying to show that the readings for that graph were taken from around the world's largest, and one of it's most active volcanos. Do you think that is likely to be a fair representation of world?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 45-year monitoring program.

Unsurprisingly, the scientists whom chose the site are better informed then BobK.

a_unique_person

27th September 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by shanek

YOU ARE A FILTHY F*CKING LIAR!!!!

I specifically presented that link to refute YOUR claim that there was no debate—and that link specifically says that the role of the tropics in the global climate has been greater than was predicted! It WAS NOT AND WAS NEVER presented by me as evidence regarding the absorbtion of CO2 by plants AND YOU F*CKING WELL KNOW IT!!! :mad:

You are a TROLL and you are a LIAR.

Once again, Shanek leads the cause of skeptical and critical thinking with his usual sense of balance and reason.

You might not have provided that link for that reason, but that link provided that information.

Anyway, at the rate clearing of the tropics is going, they will be irrelevant to this debate in the future.

I would like to point out, however, that eco-systems are very complex, and can be thrown out of balance. When that initial disruption does occur, massive side effects will reverberate througout them, with many unforseen consequences.

Also, your thought that the take up of CO2 by plants will balance out the excess production of CO2 is wishful thinking. How do you know that this is what will happen. It would be nice if it did, but there is no guarantee that it will. As Yeti shows, the evidence is that it will not keep up.

BobK

27th September 2003, 07:27 PM

Widely recognized as the "Keeling curve", the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements, taken since 1958 and now extending through 1997, constitute the longest, continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world and are considered to be a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained...

Bold is mine.

Wrong again yeti.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by BobK

Bold is mine.

Wrong again yeti.

What a riot. Why don't you call up the the observatory and tell them they are all wasting their time? After all, what do PhD climatologists know compared to the almighty wisdom of BobK?

What about the ice core samples? Is that due to all those antarctic volcanoes?

Wrong again BobK, you and shanek should start a club, Incompetents Anonymous.

a_unique_person

27th September 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by shanek

:rolleyes:

Science doesn't work by authority, people. Only through a serious and corageous acceptance of the facts regardless of what we want to believe.

I don't have any problems whatsoever with any actial scientists studying this field; I do have a problem with those who pretend that GW is human caused and is a major problem when the data clearly doesn't show any convincing evidence that this is the case.

Yes it does. When I go to a doctory, I am relying on his authority. I don't really have much choice. I can ask for some information, and often do. But after a while, I realise that suddenly I have no idea what he is talking about.

The peer review process is in place to assure scientists that they can take a published paper as having some authority and not being just a waste of time.

BobK

27th September 2003, 10:48 PM

yeti,

Since you failed to refute my contention(see post above) that your graph is simply for regional trends and not worldwide. I can only assume that you now agree with me on that point.

Thanks for the ad hom attack. It gave me some insight into your personality. Previously I thought that all those ad homs you throw at shanek was something personal between the two of you. I see it's not. I prefer not to waste my time reading that tripe. I'll end my participation in this thread at this point.

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by BobK

Since you failed to refute my contention(see post above) that your graph is simply for regional trends and not worldwide. I can only assume that you now agree with me on that point.

Ok, I'll try again, the "region" referred to in the above quote is the troposphere, not regional meaing "around Mauna Loa". Read it again:

Widely recognized as the "Keeling curve", the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements, taken since 1958 and now extending through 1997, constitute the longest, continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world and are considered to be a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere.

Thanks for the ad hom attack.

You're welcome, pinhead! You have any other brilliant insights I can pass on to the earth science community, Mr. Wizard?

It gave me some insight into your personality. Previously I thought that all those ad homs you throw at shanek was something personal between the two of you. I see it's not. I prefer not to waste my time reading that tripe. I'll end my participation in this thread at this point.

Fine, go back to reading your comic books and leave the science discussion to the adults.

LucyR

27th September 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

You're welcome, pinhead! You have any other brilliant insights I can pass on to the earth science community, Mr. Wizard?

None of that 'make friends and influence people' wimpiness for the Yeti! :D

EvilYeti

27th September 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by LucyR

None of that 'make friends and influence people' wimpiness for the Yeti! :D

The yutz wrote off the life work of one of the worlds top earth scientists as "worthless". He got what he deserved.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I'm sorry, but this is just more bet-hedging from the GW side. Just like a "psychic": You predict so many things that a few of them are bound to end up being correct, and you hope people will not noticed the other, failed predictions.

The GW people predict warmer weather, colder weather, I even heard one talk about "excessively moderate temperatures." More storms mean GW. Fewer storms mean GW. Decreasing Antarctic ice means GW. Increasing Antarctic ice means GW. They've set it up so they can't lose.

Meanwhile, the previous predictions haven't come about, such as the temperature increasing in the troposphere first. But the troposphere isn't warming; it's surface temperatures that are warming. The "response" of the GW people are to pretend that that's what they were talking about the whole time, in classic 1984 fashion. Meanwhile, GW skeptics like the guy who predicted the recent El Niño have their predictions bourne out, after which the GW people just pretend they predicted it after all.

And you people wonder why we're skeptical!

These are all hearsay anecdotes and not sourced to authority. You have not shown that the peer reviewed authorities say this.

shanek

28th September 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You are wrong, again. As usual.
The current CO2 concentration is 360 ppmvm, higher than anything seen in the last 200,000 years.

That is just absolutely and completely and totally wrong!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image260.gif

Find one reference that shows a rate of increase anything like what we have seen in the last two hundred years.

See the graph.

No, you are making the ludicrious claim that huge spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere durning the last two hundred years are due to something other than human emissions.

No, YOU are making the ludicrous claim that this spike is unprecedented in the history of the world!

The burnden of proof is on you to provide evidence of natural sources that overwhelm that contribution.

No, it isn't. YOU are making the claium that humans are causing it. YOU provide the evidence.

It is unique in the history of the earth.

No, it isn't. It's part of a trend that started about 18,000 years ago:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image261.gif

Sources for the first graph:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2.txt

Source for the second:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/taylor/taylor_data.html

shanek

28th September 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by dsm
Perhaps Greenland being "green" at the time of Eric the Red was one of many abberations (http://www.geo.nsf.gov/geo/adgeo/press/pr9456.htm) in the climate of Greenland and we're seeing yet another abberation.

Which brings me right back to: Why is it such a cause for alarm them?

shanek

28th September 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You might not have provided that link for that reason, but that link provided that information.

I'm not saying it didn't; but EY is dishonestly using it to claim that I misread and/or misrepresented the source when I didn't.

For crying out loud, people—OF COURSE IT VALIDATED HIS SIDE!!! There wouldn't have been much of a point to it if it hadn't, now, would there?

Also, your thought that the take up of CO2 by plants will balance out the excess production of CO2 is wishful thinking. How do you know that this is what will happen.

I don't know it will. But that's what the evidence suggests, in study after study after study.

It would be nice if it did, but there is no guarantee that it will.

You won't find guarantees in science. It wouldn't be science if you did.

shanek

28th September 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes it does. When I go to a doctory, I am relying on his authority. I don't really have much choice.

Now, that's complete bull$#!7! You have your choice of several doctors, as well as chiropractors, homeopaths, psychic surgeons, and reflexologists. YOU made an evaluation as to which of them was right on the ball and which was using junk science. And based on that evaluation, you chose to defer to the expertise of the doctor YOU DECIDED was best for the job.

The peer review process is in place to assure scientists that they can take a published paper as having some authority and not being just a waste of time.

No, the peer review process is there so that it can be, well, reviewed by peers to make sure that the scientist hasn't made any mistakes in methodology or reasoning. Being published by peer review doesn't make you right and being rejected doesn't make you wrong.

shanek

28th September 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by BobK
Previously I thought that all those ad homs you throw at shanek was something personal between the two of you. I see it's not.

He's been that way in every thread I've seen him participate in towards everyone who disagrees with him.

And don't think that if one of us had made the mistake of using regional data instead of global that he wouldn't have been a lot more vituperous than you were.

dsm

28th September 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Which brings me right back to: Why is it such a cause for alarm them?

Depends upon the cause...

The past aberrations are over. We might be able to look at them and determine what brought them on and what brought them to an end. This aberration (if that is what it is) is still going on and, so, we don't have the luxury of hindsight to tell us how it's going to work out. We study what is happening and attempt to draw conclusions about what will happen. As is evident from this discussion, though, that process is still going on and being refined.

:(

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That is just absolutely and completely and totally wrong!

No, YOU are making the ludicrous claim that this spike is unprecedented in the history of the world!

No, it isn't. YOU are making the claium that humans are causing it. YOU provide the evidence.

No, it isn't. It's part of a trend that started about 18,000 years ago:

Shanek, you are without a doubt the biggest moron who has ever lived. I've never in my entire life encountered someone so completely and totally oblivious to the truth, even when its right in front of his tiny, microcephalic head.

As usual, nothing you have provided has refuted anything I've said. Rather, and as usual again, it supports me.

Firstly, the CO2 concentration in the troposphere was 367 ppm in the year 2000. Both of the charts you posted have 300 as the UPPER BOUND! How can you be so dense? Do you know that 367 is a bigger number then 300? Are you retarded?

Second, the x-axis of both the charts are in THOUSANDS of years!!! The first chart covers 0-300k years in 534 pixels. That translates to about 562 years per pixel.
CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 367 in the last 200 years. Since this scales to less then one pixel, would you care to point out where on the chart there is a vertical line indicating an 80 ppm increase? No slope allowed, it has to be VERTICAL line. Can you do that? Until you can, shut the hell up.

CO2 is a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Humans contribute six billion tons of it the atmosphere anually. That is a fact, accepted by the entire scientific community. If you have evidence to contrary, supply it. Until then, shut yer pie-hole.

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And don't think that if one of us had made the mistake of using regional data instead of global that he wouldn't have been a lot more vituperous than you were.

EvilYeti went to college and got a science degree, so he knows what "regional" means to atmospheric scientists.

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/regions_figure.gif

Hey shanek, when your teachers kept calling you "special" I hope you know they weren't paying you a compliment.

Did you and BobK share the same little yellow bus? :D

shanek

28th September 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by dsm
Depends upon the cause...

The past aberrations are over. We might be able to look at them and determine what brought them on and what brought them to an end. This aberration (if that is what it is) is still going on and, so, we don't have the luxury of hindsight to tell us how it's going to work out. We study what is happening and attempt to draw conclusions about what will happen. As is evident from this discussion, though, that process is still going on and being refined.

Fair enough, but that wasn't the original point. The original point was basically, "Oh, no, the ice in Greenland is melting!" ...And? You need a little more than that if you want to convince me that the ice in Greenland going away is cause for alarm; that's all I was saying.

shanek

28th September 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Firstly, the CO2 concentration in the troposphere was 367 ppm in the year 2000. Both of the charts you posted have 300 as the UPPER BOUND! How can you be so dense? Do you know that 367 is a bigger number then 300? Are you retarded?

No, but YOU must be if you don't know about the issue of "resolution," which is what on those charts cause even the concentrations today to be less than 300. It's an average over a very, very long period of time.

Second, the x-axis of both the charts are in THOUSANDS of years!!!

Because we're looking at trends covering thousands of years. Duh!!!

Since this scales to less then one pixel, would you care to point out where on the chart there is a vertical line indicating an 80 ppm increase? No slope allowed, it has to be VERTICAL line.

It can't, under any circumstances, be a vertical line because you can't have two different values for the same data point. YOU are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. It's that "resolution" thing again.

Ya gotta compare apples to apples.

CO2 is a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Humans contribute six billion tons of it the atmosphere anually. That is a fact, accepted by the entire scientific community. If you have evidence to contrary, supply it. Until then, shut yer pie-hole.

Since I am not claiming the contrary, I am under no obligation to do so. So YOU shut YOUR pie-hole until you can spout out anything other than strawmen and ad hominems.

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, but YOU must be if you don't know about the issue of "resolution," which is what on those charts cause even the concentrations today to be less than 300. It's an average over a very, very long period of time.

Its an average over 562 years. If there was any historical trend comparable to what we are seeing now over that period the average would reflect that. The CO2 levels are not fluctuating, they are going up, up, up!!!

Because we're looking at trends covering thousands of years. Duh!!!

And I'm discussing the trend of the last two hundred years. Why the obfuscation?

It can't, under any circumstances, be a vertical line because you can't have two different values for the same data point. YOU are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. It's that "resolution" thing again.

You sure can, if the resolution was 100 years per pixel the last data point would be a verical line next to the previous data point. Thats the best you can do on a raster display.

Ya gotta compare apples to apples.

Ok, then provide data that shows an increase of 80 ppm in a period of 200 years. Other than 1800-2000 of course. The scale of the charts you presented is to big to provide anything usefull.

Since I am not claiming the contrary, I am under no obligation to do so. So YOU shut YOUR pie-hole until you can spout out anything other than strawmen and ad hominems.

So you admit the increase is carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere over the last two hundred years is primarily due human CO2 emissions? I guess the debates settled then.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Now, that's complete bull$#!7! You have your choice of several doctors, as well as chiropractors, homeopaths, psychic surgeons, and reflexologists. YOU made an evaluation as to which of them was right on the ball and which was using junk science. And based on that evaluation, you chose to defer to the expertise of the doctor YOU DECIDED was best for the job.

That's right. I go to a doctor, someone who has a qualification for medical practice that has been approved by the medical authorities. That is why I don't go to chiropractors or homeopaths.

No, the peer review process is there so that it can be, well, reviewed by peers to make sure that the scientist hasn't made any mistakes in methodology or reasoning. Being published by peer review doesn't make you right and being rejected doesn't make you wrong.

That's right, he has been reviewed, to see if there are any mistakes in his methodology and reasoning. That is, what he has claimed in his paper is correct and can be verified by others.

Being rejected means you have made a mistake and have to go back to the drawing board.

This is the same process used in all scientific areas. Why is it failing so badly in climate research, but not in medicine?

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

EvilYeti went to college and got a science degree, so he knows what "regional" means to atmospheric scientists.

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/regions_figure.gif

Hey shanek, when your teachers kept calling you "special" I hope you know they weren't paying you a compliment.

Did you and BobK share the same little yellow bus? :D

LOL, the regions are vertical, not horizontal, as the layman would assume.

shanek

28th September 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Its an average over 562 years. If there was any historical trend comparable to what we are seeing now over that period the average would reflect that. The CO2 levels are not fluctuating, they are going up, up, up!!!

How do you know what we're experiencing now is not part of a fluctuation, especially since, as the second graph shows, we're in the middle of an overall rising trend that's been going on long before humans even thought about using fossil fuels?

And I'm discussing the trend of the last two hundred years.

But you claimed that the current trend is unique in all the history of the world, when it clearly isn't.

You sure can, if the resolution was 100 years per pixel the last data point would be a verical line next to the previous data point.

No, it wouldn't. It will NEVER be vertical. It may be 89.999999°, but it will NEVER be vertical.

Ok, then provide data that shows an increase of 80 ppm in a period of 200 years. Other than 1800-2000 of course.

Read "Dual Modes of the Carbon Cycle Since the Last Glacial Maximum," Nature, 400, 248-250

The abstract:
The most conspicuous feature of the record of past climate contained in polar ice is the rapid warming which occurs after long intervals of gradual cooling. During the last four transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions, over which such abrupt warmings occur, ice records indicate that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere increased by roughly 80 to 100 parts per million by volume. But the causes of the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases are unclear. Here we present the stable-carbon-isotopic composition (delta13CO2) of CO2 extracted from air trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica, from the last Glacial Maximum to the onset of Holocene times. The global carbon cycle is shown to have operated in two distinct primary modes on the timescale of thousands of years, one when climate was changing relatively slowly and another when warming was rapid, each with a characteristic average stable-carbon-isotope composition of the net CO2 exchanged by the atmosphere with the land and oceans. delta13CO2 increased between 16.5 and 9 thousand years ago by slightly more than would be estimated to be caused by the physical effects of a 5 degree C rise in global average sea surface temperature driving a CO2 efflux from the ocean, but our data do not allow specific causes to be constrained.

Also check out "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Science, 283, 1712-1714

Abstract:

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

So you admit the increase is carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere over the last two hundred years is primarily due human CO2 emissions?

No; I don't know if that's true or not. Every time I read one thing that says it is I read something else that says it isn't. It's clear to me that the science on this is far from conclusive so far. In fact, the above paper does make that very point.

All I was saying is that I was not disagreeing with your figures on how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by humans. I'm not confirming it; again, I simply don't know.

That is all right, you know; admitting when you don't know something. You should try it at least once.

shanek

28th September 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's right. I go to a doctor, someone who has a qualification for medical practice that has been approved by the medical authorities.

And whom do you consider to be the "medical authorities"? If it's your insurance company, well, many insurance companies cover chiropractic. If it's the government, well, here at least the government requires many insurance companies to cover chiropractic and other "alternative" forms of medicine. If it's someone else who doesn't include chiropractic, then again you've chosen your specific authority over those who have included chiropractic.

That's right, he has been reviewed, to see if there are any mistakes in his methodology and reasoning. That is, what he has claimed in his paper is correct and can be verified by others.

For your information, it happens all the time that this happens but the information in the paper turns out to be incorrect. You can get everything right and still end up being wrong. Nothing in science is considered to be a final conclusion of what is true.

Being rejected means you have made a mistake and have to go back to the drawing board.

And it has happened that people with rejected papers demonstrate that they were, in fact, correct, after fixing the mistakes. It's a check to make sure people aren't basing conclusions on bad data. It's not any kind of guarantee that the conclusion is true.

Why is it failing so badly in climate research,

When did I say it was? It seems to be working fine to me. The problem seems to come into play when you get people like you and EvilYeti blathering on about how GW is true and real and proven and we have to do something about it and then go around and try to get the government to take my tax money for actions that certainly will cause harm but that only may fix a problem than no one can prove exists.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Fair enough, but that wasn't the original point. The original point was basically, "Oh, no, the ice in Greenland is melting!" ...And? You need a little more than that if you want to convince me that the ice in Greenland going away is cause for alarm; that's all I was saying.

The weather changes all the time, yes. But it looks like we are in for a massive change.

As I have said before, mankind was primarily nomadic or semi-nomadic. Populations were constantly on the move or adapting.

We don't have that luxury now. All the land is spoken for. We aren't all going to pack up tomorrow and move to the new paradise in Greenland.

Look at the massive disruptions caused by earthquakes, power blackouts and terrorist strikes.

What people like you seem to be saying is 'we are going to have problems anyway, so why worry if we make them worse'.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And whom do you consider to be the "medical authorities"? If it's your insurance company, well, many insurance companies cover chiropractic. If it's the government, well, here at least the government requires many insurance companies to cover chiropractic and other "alternative" forms of medicine. If it's someone else who doesn't include chiropractic, then again you've chosen your specific authority over those who have included chiropractic.

In fact, there is a big push to get chiropractic cover banned, because it is just being provided by the health insurance companies to increase revenue, pushing up costs. There is no compulsion to provide chiropractic cover from the government.

Either way, when I go to a doctor, I know that there is a process to certify him or her to be qualified, and that if there is malpractice, then they are disqualified.

For your information, it happens all the time that this happens but the information in the paper turns out to be incorrect. You can get everything right and still end up being wrong. Nothing in science is considered to be a final conclusion of what is true.

Yep, the scientific process, inching forward bit by bit. The same scientific process that GW scientists are using.

And it has happened that people with rejected papers demonstrate that they were, in fact, correct, after fixing the mistakes. It's a check to make sure people aren't basing conclusions on bad data. It's not any kind of guarantee that the conclusion is true.

Ditto

When did I say it was? It seems to be working fine to me. The problem seems to come into play when you get people like you and EvilYeti blathering on about how GW is true and real and proven and we have to do something about it and then go around and try to get the government to take my tax money for actions that certainly will cause harm but that only may fix a problem than no one can prove exists.

Now you are getting to the crux of the problem. GW has economic implications, therefore, the scientific process has suddenly failed.

The scientific consensus is that GW is real. Curiously enough, one of the reasons that scientists are researching it is that the long term economic implications are that it will be very expensive.

Already, insurance companies are compelled to provide cover for people living in parts of Florida, for example, even though these companies know they will make a loss.

LucyR

28th September 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Now you are getting to the crux of the problem. GW has economic implications, therefore, the scientific process has suddenly failed.

I think it's also viewed by some as an attack on personal freedoms and lifestyle. Perhaps a commie plot. In any case, just the sort of thing calculated to get childish, paranoid people very excited.

shanek

28th September 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What people like you seem to be saying is 'we are going to have problems anyway, so why worry if we make them worse'.

No, I am saying the exact opposite. We know for a fact that counter-GW measures such as Kyoto will have inhibiting, perhaps even devestating effects on economy, technology, and other aspects of our lives which we depend on to survive. We are asked to suffer this based on nothing more than a Chicken Little extrapolation of an effect science isn't even certain about yet.

It's the GW types who are saying we've got nothing to lose by enacting these very harmful policies because the alternative is the destruction of a good amount of human civilization, something they can most certainly not prove.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, I am saying the exact opposite. We know for a fact that counter-GW measures such as Kyoto will have inhibiting, perhaps even devestating effects on economy, technology, and other aspects of our lives which we depend on to survive. We are asked to suffer this based on nothing more than a Chicken Little extrapolation of an effect science isn't even certain about yet.

It's the GW types who are saying we've got nothing to lose by enacting these very harmful policies because the alternative is the destruction of a good amount of human civilization, something they can most certainly not prove.

You know for a fact? I beg to differ. Your the one playing chicken little here.

shanek

28th September 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is no compulsion to provide chiropractic cover from the government.

I don't know about the Australian government, but there certainly is from the US government.

Either way, when I go to a doctor, I know that there is a process to certify him or her to be qualified, and that if there is malpractice, then they are disqualified.

And there aren't doctors who meet all of those criteria that don't vary widely in skills and success rates? You'd just blindly accept a degree and the lack of disqualification as a reason to put your very life in his hands? Are you really telling me that you wouldn't research the available doctors for yourself to find out which of them was the best?

Yep, the scientific process, inching forward bit by bit. The same scientific process that GW scientists are using.

Right. Which is exactly why we shouldn't start shouting "The sky is falling!" quite just yet.

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by shanek

How do you know what we're experiencing now is not part of a fluctuation, especially since, as the second graph shows, we're in the middle of an overall rising trend that's been going on long before humans even thought about using fossil fuels?

Because if you actually take the historical data apart and look at it you will see short term fluctuations in the data. Look at my chart for the last 1000 years, its goes up and down until about 1800, then it goes straight up. Thats not natural! The concentrations are steadily increasing with no end in sight. We are dumping CO2 that would otherwise remain trapped underground into the atmosphere, billions of tons a year in fact.

But you claimed that the current trend is unique in all the history of the world, when it clearly isn't.

Then prove it, find a 200 year period with an increase of 80 or more ppm CO2 without a single regression. The charts you provided are not detailed enough to render this, you are going to have to look harder.

No, it wouldn't. It will NEVER be vertical. It may be 89.999999°, but it will NEVER be vertical.

At the resolution of the image you provided, it would look like a straight line next to dot. Either get bigger charts or smaller scales.

No; I don't know if that's true or not. Every time I read one thing that says it is I read something else that says it isn't. It's clear to me that the science on this is far from conclusive so far. In fact, the above paper does make that very point.

You don't understand the reference you provided. The last glacial maximum was 18,000 years ago, so the warming trend being discussed took place just after that. There is no natural precedent for the drastic warming we have experienced over the last two hundred years, this far from an ice age.

This topic is only unclear if you read junk science sites like John Daly's. He's not a valid source! Its his fault you made yourself look like an idiot by quoting an astrologer on GW, why don't you take that as a hint to be more careful in your research?

All I was saying is that I was not disagreeing with your figures on how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by humans. I'm not confirming it; again, I simply don't know.

There is zero debate on how much CO2 is produced. We know how much CO2 is released from burning fossil fuels, we know how much we produce each year and we know how much we consume each year. Its trivial to do the math and work out the results.

That is all right, you know; admitting when you don't know something. You should try it at least once.

Which is why I use research from qualified and independant authorities instead of the LP propaganda mill to inform myself. Why don't you try that, just once? Please?

P.S. Nice image I just found, hopefuly even Shanek can undestand this one
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1000YrRecords.jpg

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And there aren't doctors who meet all of those criteria that don't vary widely in skills and success rates? You'd just blindly accept a degree and the lack of disqualification as a reason to put your very life in his hands? Are you really telling me that you wouldn't research the available doctors for yourself to find out which of them was the best?

I shop around, but at least I know, even if I am going to a doctor I don't know at all, that I have a reasonable chance of coming out of his surgery with correct medical treatment. Without the medical board and regulation, I would have no idea of what standards a doctor met when I had to make a cold call. What would I do? "Hmmm, I lost a limb last time I went to that guy, guess I won't be going to him again. But that's OK, I can sue him."

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Which is why I use research from qualified and independant authorities instead of the LP propaganda mill to inform myself. Why don't you try that, just once? Please?

P.S. Nice image I just found, hopefuly even Shanek can undestand this one

Nice try Yeti, but as I was trying to get at in the Science and Politics thread, the real problem Shane and friends have is the implications of this, not the facts.

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You know for a fact? I beg to differ.

Ah, you have evidence rebutting all of the damage economists say will happen if Kyoto is passed? Then present it.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Ah, you have evidence rebutting all of the damage economists say will happen if Kyoto is passed? Then present it.

No, you are making the claim that Kyoto will cause harm to the economy, not me.

I am only claiming that, if GW is correct, then there will be economic harm. And GW appears to be correct. I have already told you that my friend does not think the sky is falling, that is your strawman. All he is claiming is that we should consider the consequences. That is out of the scientific arena and back in the political arena.

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Because if you actually take the historical data apart and look at it you will see short term fluctuations in the data.

And you'll also see longer-term trends, as in the data from the charts and other references I provided.

Look at my chart for the last 1000 years, its goes up and down until about 1800, then it goes straight up. Thats not natural!

It's also not true. Those graphs you just posted are the long-refuted "hockey stick" graphs and only came out looking like that because a different measuring stick was used for the more recent data. It was dismissed by the National Academy of Sciences, and was refuted by a Harvard study of 240 independent peer-reviewed climate studies and published by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html).

Then prove it,

Already have. You've taken to your favorite tactic of either outright ignoring the data or pretending that it somehow agrees with you (with no explanation thereof).

There is zero debate on how much CO2 is produced.

And I'm not debating it, either. So why do you keep blathering on about it?

And not one word about all of the sources from Science and Nature that I've provided? Including the ones in direct response to your request?

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 07:40 PM

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I shop around,

Then you don't take things solely on authority. We could have saved a lot of posts and bandwidth if you'd just said that from the first...

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

The implications are a different debate, shanek won't even acknowlege anthropogenic global warming as real!

Anthropogenic is humans. Humans are political. Political is not scientific.

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Nice try Yeti, but as I was trying to get at in the Science and Politics thread, the real problem Shane and friends have is the implications of this, not the facts.

The problem is that people are employing solutions that will be damaging, to a problem they can't prove exists, and which the scientific experts say won't have much of an effect on it anyway. Tell me how that can possibly make any sense at all!

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Then you don't take things solely on authority. We could have saved a lot of posts and bandwidth if you'd just said that from the first...

I don't really get to shop around with scientists that much, though. Like I said, if the scientific process is being followed, it gives me a good idea that what is being claimed has a reasonable basis.

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All he is claiming is that we should consider the consequences.

Considering the consequences is fine, as long as it's done from both directions. But acting as if we have nothing to lose by acting to prevent it is simple foolishness.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The problem is that people are employing solutions that will be damaging, to a problem they can't prove exists, and which the scientific experts say won't have much of an effect on it anyway. Tell me how that can possibly make any sense at all!

You just said they can't prove it exists, then that it won't have much of an effect. If they can't prove it exists, then why would you trust them to say it won't have much of an effect?

When my friend says it won't have the 'waterworld' effect on the world, he is serious. But he is also quite serious about the effects on low lying areas and weather events. Insurance companies are the 'canary' here for the business world, as they naturally would be, and they are serious about the issue.

shanek

28th September 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You just said they can't prove it exists, then that it won't have much of an effect. If they can't prove it exists, then why would you trust them to say it won't have much of an effect?

That's just bogus and you know it. Experts such as Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and the National Academy of Sciences, and even Dr. James Hansen (the "father of global warming" himself) all have gone on record as saying that Kyoto will have litle if any effect on the changing climate.

a_unique_person

28th September 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That's just bogus and you know it. Experts such as Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and the National Academy of Sciences, and even Dr. James Hansen (the "father of global warming" himself) all have gone on record as saying that Kyoto will have litle if any effect on the changing climate.

We have been here before, I just know it. Kyoto was supposed to be a get together to see if everyone could at least get the ball moving, much like the ongoing WTO talks, which also do not pretend to solve the problem all at once.

EvilYeti

28th September 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And you'll also see longer-term trends, as in the data from the charts and other references I provided.

Irrelevant. What IS relevant is finding a short term trend in our natural history that is at all similar to what happend in the last 200 years. When you do get back to us.

It's also not true. Those graphs you just posted are the long-refuted "hockey stick" graphs and only came out looking like that because a different measuring stick was used for the more recent data. It was dismissed by the National Academy of Sciences, and was refuted by a Harvard study of 240 independent peer-reviewed climate studies and published by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html).

Wrong, wrong and wrong. You are repeating John Daly's nonsense, none of what you are asserting has any basis in the truth. The NAS did no such thing, anyone can read their report on the web. In fact, its what I usually point people to when they ask me how scientists feel about AGW. You really should read it sometime.

The Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas report you reference has been discredited by the very scientists whom provided the data!

Here's some feedback on that study from the earth science community:

Similar sentiments came from Malcolm Hughes of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona, whose work is also discussed: "The Soon et al. paper is so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all."

full article here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF)

It also was not published by the "Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics", it was published in a New Zealand journal, "Climate Research".

Sadly, this is a textbook case of how the peer review process can go wrong. Several of the editors of the journal later resigned in protest due to fallout from the publication of that study.

Again, you would know about this if you got your sources from real scientists, not John Daly and his crack team of astrologers and numerologists.

Already have. You've taken to your favorite tactic of either outright ignoring the data or pretending that it somehow agrees with you (with no explanation thereof).

If you are too stupid to understand simple english sentences there is little I or anyone else can do to help you.

And I'm not debating it, either. So why do you keep blathering on about it?

So are you now claiming that CO2 isnt a greehouse gas, or that the billions of tons we release into the atmosphere every year just vanish? What the hell exactly are you claiming?

And not one word about all of the sources from Science and Nature that I've provided? Including the ones in direct response to your request?

I wrote a very clear explanation why the first reference does nothing to refute me.

You don't understand the reference you provided. The last glacial maximum was 18,000 years ago, so the warming trend being discussed took place just after that. There is no natural precedent for the drastic warming we have experienced over the last two hundred years, this far from an ice age.

As usual you ignored it.

Drooper

29th September 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by dsm

Hmmm. That chart, on it's own, is misleading. The report (http://www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/TEXT/NEWS/tuvalu.pdf) that that chart comes from (as well as other reports (http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf) ) seems to suggest that, although the data upon which it is derived relatively short, a cautious estimate of 0.8mm+/-1.9mm / year is actually happening. From other reports (http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2003/2003-07-19.htm), it certainly seems like the tidal problem is significant enough that the government of Tuvalu has already evacuated some 3000 islanders to other countries and is planning to do more.

That's not to say that this is due to global warming, but the numbers are similar in magnitude to the IPCC predictions below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001wg1/small/04.03.jpg

This response if classic global warming industry fallacy.

In response to claims that sea levels ARE rising, I present a chart that clearly shows this is a false statment.

In rebuttal, you present a chat showing kthe PREDICTIONS of the IPCC (interGOVERNMENTAL if you hadn't failed to notice).

There IS no rising sea level around Tuvalu, or Nauru either for that matter. There IS however, a desire for both these islands nations to try combat their own environmental cock ups by blaming it on the myth of global warming a c laim of rising sea levels that is a demontrable LIE. Again, sea chart.

Kodiak

29th September 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You were the one supplying the anecdotes, I was replying to how they would fit in with GW. If you don't want me to reply to your use of anecdotes, don't use them.

Nice try troll, but my absurd anecdote was to illustrate the uselessness and meaninglessness of your original fallacious anecdote.

It is truly telling that you don't recognize this fact.

Try rereading my posts describing logical fallacies and specifically anecdotal evidence. It my begin to sink in with repetition...

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

This response if classic global warming industry fallacy.

In response to claims that sea levels ARE rising, I present a chart that clearly shows this is a false statment.

In rebuttal, you present a chat showing kthe PREDICTIONS of the IPCC (interGOVERNMENTAL if you hadn't failed to notice).

There IS no rising sea level around Tuvalu, or Nauru either for that matter. There IS however, a desire for both these islands nations to try combat their own environmental cock ups by blaming it on the myth of global warming a c laim of rising sea levels that is a demontrable LIE. Again, sea chart.

Have you actually done a regression analysis on the numbers? The human eye does not always pick out a trend, especially over such a short time. However, the link you have provided says there is about 1mm per year rise, over the time of measurement. For such a small island nation, the end is in site. They could not survive without outside food aid. The land degradation is claimed to be by salt water incursion, not poor care for the environment. The article linked to by Yeti says that a later revision of the numbers shows the rise could be up to 5cm.

King of the Americas

29th September 2003, 06:49 AM

:eek:

I wasn't here for like 3 days, and I come back to see over 100 replies!?

Geez, how am I supposed to keep up with that???

Well, I finally finished reading or looking over carefully each reply and I am going to attept a summation, thusfar...

The Globe is suffer NOW a recordable rise in temperature, in accordance with a rise in CO2 levels. This particular graduated rise in these two levels began with the Industrial Revolution.

Such that, as impossible as it may sound, We- the small gods of earth are having a recordable affect on the planet on which we live.

This this 'change' is stopable, or just something that happens even without our actions, over the millenia that humanity has been on the earth IS the Debate.

Global Warming IS happening, and even if EVERYONE stopped driving internal combustion engine TODAY, it might still continue.

But the thing that troubled me the most was the point that someone raised in saying that ALL of this pointless...

...and that this whole exercise is only one of utter futility, because this is just a place to intellecutally masturbate.

My question is why DON'T you guys act upon that which you believe? Maybe you DO, and that's good. But I'll wager that most of you aren't adimate letter writers and political activists.

Why not?

Why CAN'T We decide what action(s) will provide us with better days, through better ways and actually work TOGETHER to affect those ends???

I think we can, moreover I think it is imparitive that we do so...

...sooner rather than later.

shanek

29th September 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Irrelevant. What IS relevant is finding a short term trend in our natural history that is at all similar to what happend in the last 200 years. When you do get back to us.

Already have. I gave you two different sources, in fact.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. You are repeating John Daly's nonsense, none of what you are asserting has any basis in the truth.

YOU are the one promoting junk science. Read Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001. This soundly refutes the "hockey-stick" graphs. And he evenc oncludes: "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."

Sadly, this is a textbook case of how the peer review process can go wrong.

Ah, I see. The peer-review process is necessary and good when it suits YOU, but if YOU disagree with it it means the process has gone wrong.

So are you now claiming that CO2 isnt a greehouse gas,

No.

or that the billions of tons we release into the atmosphere every year just vanish?

No.

What the hell exactly are you claiming?

That there's little if any reason to believe that we've had that much of an effect on global climate, and that the present warming trend is either unnatural or undesirable.

[b]full article here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF)

Well, here's a bit you didn't quote from it:

Scientists skeptical of human-induced warming applaud the analysis by Soon and Baliunas. "It has been painstaking and meticulous," says William Kininmonth, a meteorological consultant in Kew, Australia, and former head of the Australian National Climate Center.

And the article states outright that the issue is divided between those with the IPCC who support Kyoto, and those who don't.

shanek

29th September 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Irrelevant. What IS relevant is finding a short term trend in our natural history that is at all similar to what happend in the last 200 years. When you do get back to us.

Already have. I gave you two different sources, in fact.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. You are repeating John Daly's nonsense, none of what you are asserting has any basis in the truth.

YOU are the one promoting junk science. Read Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001. This soundly refutes the "hockey-stick" graphs. And he evenc oncludes: "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."

Sadly, this is a textbook case of how the peer review process can go wrong.

Ah, I see. The peer-review process is necessary and good when it suits YOU, but if YOU disagree with it it means the process has gone wrong.

So are you now claiming that CO2 isnt a greehouse gas,

No.

or that the billions of tons we release into the atmosphere every year just vanish?

No.

What the hell exactly are you claiming?

That there's little if any reason to believe that we've had that much of an effect on global climate, and that the present warming trend is either unnatural or undesirable.

full article here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF)

Well, here's a bit you didn't quote from it:

Scientists skeptical of human-induced warming applaud the analysis by Soon and Baliunas. "It has been painstaking and meticulous," says William Kininmonth, a meteorological consultant in Kew, Australia, and former head of the Australian National Climate Center.

And the article states outright that the issue is divided between those with the IPCC who support Kyoto, and those who don't.

As much as you obviously hate to admit it, there is debate among scientists on this issue.

Drooper

29th September 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Have you actually done a regression analysis on the numbers? The human eye does not always pick out a trend, especially over such a short time. However, the link you have provided says there is about 1mm per year rise, over the time of measurement. For such a small island nation, the end is in site. They could not survive without outside food aid. The land degradation is claimed to be by salt water incursion, not poor care for the environment. The article linked to by Yeti says that a later revision of the numbers shows the rise could be up to 5cm.

I don't think any statistical analysis is required here.

Look again,

1 mm per year over 20 years adds up to 2 cm. This would be clearly visible on the scale provided.

And what exactly do you mean by revisions? How exactly do you "revise" tidal measurements? Sounds very Orwellian to me.

shanek

29th September 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
There IS no rising sea level around Tuvalu, or Nauru either for that matter. There IS however, a desire for both these islands nations to try combat their own environmental cock ups by blaming it on the myth of global warming a c laim of rising sea levels that is a demontrable LIE. Again, sea chart.

And the Australian National Tidal Facility says that any measured changes in sea level in Tuvalu is the result of the El Niños and not part of an overall trend.

DaChew

29th September 2003, 11:01 AM

So the Russians are now wavering on their support for the Kyoto deal. Since this is the politics board perhaps some irresponsible speculation into the cause is in order:

A) Putin and the Russians hate the environment like Bush and the Americans.

B) Since the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto deal (that it was never really in in the first place) Russia's largest potential customer for CO2 credits is now gone and there is no real incentive for them to go to the trouble.

I'm leaning towards B.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3147912.stm

I'm willing to bet, however, that the EU will find a way (an economic way) to reinvigorate Russia's enthusiasm for saving our dear earth from global warming. Maybe they'll send Putin several billion "hockey stick" charts to capture his attention. Printed on Euros of course.

dsm

29th September 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Drooper

This response if classic global warming industry fallacy.

And this is a classic anti-GW reply. Now that we've established our credentials... :rolleyes:

In response to claims that sea levels ARE rising, I present a chart that clearly shows this is a false statment.

But the developers of that chart disagree with your assessment. Presenting the chart without the backing report or the analysis of that report is another classic anti-GW tactic.

In rebuttal, you present a chat showing kthe PREDICTIONS of the IPCC (interGOVERNMENTAL if you hadn't failed to notice).

Sorry. I can't parse this statement or it's intent.

There IS no rising sea level around Tuvalu, or Nauru either for that matter.

I'm sure that the islanders will be glad to hear that they can ignore their wet feet and stay put. :rolleyes:

There IS however, a desire for both these islands nations to try combat their own environmental cock ups by blaming it on the myth of global warming a claim of rising sea levels that is a demontrable LIE.

So now you want to blame the problem on the Tuvaluans? What exactly have they done wrong to cause their islands to sink beneath the sea (if the sea level isn't rising, but they've done some "environmental cock ups", then they must be causing their islands to sink)?

:rolleyes:

Again, sea chart.

And look for what? You'll note that I was not claiming global rise in sea level -- just that your assessment doesn't meet muster and I was being skeptical of it (ie. prove your claim). The report (and it's followups) claim a rise of 1-2mm/year. Not being an oceanographer, I have no idea how significant that rise is when you factor in the tides and such (especially on a set of islands that only rise 10-15m above sea level).

So, do you want to change your argument from no rise in the sea around Tuvalu to no significant rise? If so, demonstrate how 1-2mm/year is not significant.

Grammatron

29th September 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by DaChew
So the Russians are now wavering on their support for the Kyoto deal. Since this is the politics board perhaps some irresponsible speculation into the cause is in order:

A) Putin and the Russians hate the environment like Bush and the Americans.

B) Since the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto deal (that it was never really in in the first place) Russia's largest potential customer for CO2 credits is now gone and there is no real incentive for them to go to the trouble.

I'm leaning towards B.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3147912.stm

I'm willing to bet, however, that the EU will find a way (an economic way) to reinvigorate Russia's enthusiasm for saving our dear earth from global warming. Maybe they'll send Putin several billion "hockey stick" charts to capture his attention. Printed on Euros of course.

I don't see why Russia or anyone else for that matter should adapt Kyoto treaty, it does nothing more than make people feel good about themselves and hurt the economy.

EU not only failed to decrease the emissions but they have been increasing for the past few years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Already have. I gave you two different sources, in fact.

YOU are the one promoting junk science. Read Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001. This soundly refutes the "hockey-stick" graphs. And he evenc oncludes: "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."

Ah, I see. The peer-review process is necessary and good when it suits YOU, but if YOU disagree with it it means the process has gone wrong.

But it caught up with them.

That there's little if any reason to believe that we've had that much of an effect on global climate, and that the present warming trend is either unnatural or undesirable.

There is a lot of evidence that warming can be undesirable. People like living near the coast. A lot of those low lying areas will be under risk. Ports are a major part of the global economy. They will be at risk. They can be rebuilt, but the disruption will be substantial. Weather events are tipped to increase. The hot spell in Eurpope killed an extra 10,000 people over the normal death rate for that time period.

Just as long as no-one has to give up their SUV or change anything about their lifestyle. Hang on though, if warming is going to happen, we will have to change our lifestyles to an extent anyway. It's just that one way we are trying to do it in a controlled and rational manner, the other way, we'll just wait until it breaks and see what we can do about it. I think that history has shown, rational thought triumphs over adhoc reaction.

Well, here's a bit you didn't quote from it:

And those who think like that will welcome such a study, even if it has been shown to be flawed.

And the article states outright that the issue is divided between those with the IPCC who support Kyoto, and those who don't.

And much of this once again comes down to politics, the politics of those who see their vested interests under threat. Well, their vested interests are under threat either way, hiding their heads in a hole won't change that.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And the Australian National Tidal Facility says that any measured changes in sea level in Tuvalu is the result of the El Niños and not part of an overall trend.

No it doesn't. It says that ElNino is a cause of major rises and falls, but there is also an underlying long term trend of rising levels.

PS, isn't this one of your appeals to authority? You do it when it suits you.

shanek

29th September 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by dsm
Sorry. I can't parse this statement or it's intent.

The chart that you presented was the IPCC forecasts, not actual measurements. Take a look at the chart again. Note that most of the years haven't even gotten here yet.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 05:45 PM

shanek

29th September 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is a lot of evidence that warming can be undesirable.

And a lot of evidence that it can be a good thing.

People like living near the coast. A lot of those low lying areas will be under risk. Ports are a major part of the global economy. They will be at risk. They can be rebuilt, but the disruption will be substantial. Weather events are tipped to increase. The hot spell in Eurpope killed an extra 10,000 people over the normal death rate for that time period.

These predictions have been made before and haven't bourne out. The current measured warming is below even the lowest amount predicted by the IPCC.

Just as long as no-one has to give up their SUV or change anything about their lifestyle.

Do I have to point out yet again that the automotive companies are putting out SUVs that get over 50mpg? There's the Toyota Lexus, the Ford Escape, and others that use a hybrid electric system that garners the best of both worlds: the efficiency and convenience of gasoline engines with the cleanliness and reliability of electric engines. And they did it without Kyoto.

Hang on though, if warming is going to happen, we will have to change our lifestyles to an extent anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. But as gradual as the warming will obviously be, most of those problems (1°C by 2100, according to the IPCC, which is down from 2°C from their 1995 prediction and from 3.3°C from 1990). And if the prediction keeps dropping the change will be even milder still.

It's just that one way we are trying to do it in a controlled and rational manner,

Please explain how Kyoto is either controlled or raitonal.

I think that history has shown, rational thought triumphs over adhoc reaction.

Not when the rational thought is based on bad or inaccurate information.

And much of this once again comes down to politics, the politics of those who see their vested interests under threat.

As long as you recognize that there are people like this on both sides of the equation, then that's fine.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by shanek

As long as you recognize that there are people like this on both sides of the equation, then that's fine.

On one side, there are the scientists, on the other, the amateurs.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And a lot of evidence that it can be a good thing.

Change=disorder. Fundamental law of physics. The more rapid the change, the greater the disorder.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

http://www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/TEXT/NEWS/tuvalu.pdf

NTF Australia has also performed an historical assessment of sea level change based on historical tide gauge information. This assessment, published in the project’s Quarterly Newsletter of January 2000, under the title Sea Level Rise in Australia and the Pacific, shows a very similar sea level behaviour at Funafuti. The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07mmper year. The 22-year record had been subjected to the El Nino events of 1982/3, 1987/8 and 1997/8. The excursions due to these events dominate the records of gauges located close to the equatorial wave guide and, in particular, effects strongly those gauges close to the western boundary currents of the Pacific. In this region 30 to 40 cmsea level anomalies in response to ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) events is typical. This introduces a high ‘noise’ level in the sea level measurements making a sea level trend determination more difficult and requiring a number of decades of data to yield realistic estimates. The historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends.

A close examination of other parameters measured over the period 3/1993 - 1/2002, such as barometric pressure, air temperature, winds and water temperature, shows no unusual anomalies or changes at Funafuti, Tuvalu.

See the attached graph from the report.

It says that ElNino is a cause of major rises and falls, but there is also an underlying long term trend of rising levels.

No, it doesn't. See the quote.

PS, isn't this one of your appeals to authority? You do it when it suits you.

No, I do it because you people have done nothing but spout that out while you ignore the data. You made it clear that's how you want the game played. Don't b!tch just because I can hammer you just as easily this way, too.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yet you can confidently predict the economic consequences of Kyoto.

Because we have directly observed the economic effects of similar measures in the past. They have always had a negative effect on the economy.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:04 PM

I don't get it. They say it is rising.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
On one side, there are the scientists, on the other, the amateurs.

No, as I have shown, there are plenty of scientists on the other side, too.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Change=disorder. Fundamental law of physics.

Really? Must've slept through that day. Amazing how I still managed to ace physics and not know that. I'm sure you have a reference, right?

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Because we have directly observed the economic effects of similar measures in the past. They have always had a negative effect on the economy.

And they are.....

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Really? Must've slept through that day. Amazing how I still managed to ace physics and not know that. I'm sure you have a reference, right?

It is one of the first things you learn about thermodynamics.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't get it. They say it is rising.

Only because of the effects of the El Niños. The more decades you roll into it, the less the rise gets because they don't putsch the average as much.

For some reason, the graph didn't attach. Here it is:

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And they are.....

Restrictions on fuel and trade have always been devastating to the economy. Just look at the 1970's, fer edssake.

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It is one of the first things you learn about thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics does not refer to ANY change. It refers to energy entering or leaving a body. If energy enters a body, its disorder increases. If energy leaves a body, its disorder DECREASES. So not all thermodynamic changes result in increased disorder.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Earth's climate is a closed system. Are you?

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:12 PM

And I have said before, there are often underlying trends that the eyeball won't detect on such charts, but numerical analysis will. These guys have said

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07mmper year."

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Thermodynamics does not refer to ANY change. It refers to energy entering or leaving a body. If energy enters a body, its disorder increases. If energy leaves a body, its disorder DECREASES. So not all thermodynamic changes result in increased disorder.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Earth's climate is a closed system. Are you?

Drive your car at 100kmh, then stop slowly.

Then, jump on the brakes.

Then, run it into a brick wall.

dsm

29th September 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The chart that you presented was the IPCC forecasts, not actual measurements. Take a look at the chart again. Note that most of the years haven't even gotten here yet.

Oh, I think I see. My intention for the chart was apparently not clear. I know that the chart was a forecast and I was attempting to show that the predictions made in the chart are beginning to show up in the world (as in the Tuvalu example). Thus, the IPCC forecast is not (yet) disproven.

Sorry for the confusion.

dsm

29th September 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Maybe, maybe not. But as gradual as the warming will obviously be, most of those problems (1°C by 2100, according to the IPCC, which is down from 2°C from their 1995 prediction and from 3.3°C from 1990). And if the prediction keeps dropping the change will be even milder still.

And the reasons they give for the reduction in the prediction were?

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And I have said before, there are often underlying trends that the eyeball won't detect on such charts, but numerical analysis will. These guys have said

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07mmper year."

You have to keep reading.

The 22-year record had been subjected to the El Nino events of 1982/3, 1987/8 and 1997/8. The excursions due to these events dominate the records of gauges located close to the equatorial wave guide and, in particular, effects strongly those gauges close to the western boundary currents of the Pacific. In this region 30 to 40 cmsea level anomalies in response to ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) events is typical. This introduces a high ‘noise’ level in the sea level measurements making a sea level trend determination more difficult and requiring a number of decades of data to yield realistic estimates. The historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends.

The director of NTF, Wolfgang Scherer, specifically said, "The data does not support any sea-level rise at all."

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2002/2002-01-30.htm

shanek

29th September 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by dsm
And the reasons they give for the reduction in the prediction were?

New observations that showed the temperature wasn't rising at a level consistent with their previous predictions.

Which is fine and wonderful, and exactly how science should work. But it's also exactly why we shouldn't go on and on and on about how a disaster is looming and we must do something about it when the scientists are still gathering information and really cannot be said to be sure yet.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You have to keep reading.

The director of NTF, Wolfgang Scherer, specifically said, "The data does not support any sea-level rise at all."

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2002/2002-01-30.htm

Acceleration is not the same as no change. A constant speed of increase is not an accelleration. The quote you refer to is not in the text you referred to.

EvilYeti

29th September 2003, 07:07 PM

Can we please try and keep the discussion on topic?

This is a very complex issue and bringing the Kyoto protocol into it is only going to obfuscate matters. I'm fairly ambivalent on the protocol myself, in my opinion the damage is done and reducing emissions by 5% is pretty much pissing in the ocean.

But I also feel its at least a step in the right direction and indicates an effort to curb our dependence on fossil fuels. The claims its going to "ruin" the economy are utter nonsense. We were buring 5% less fossil fuels not that long ago (within everyones liftetime here) and the economy did just fine.

I also notice that snanek is now claiming that warming is "good".

Well thats fine and dandy, so shouldn't anthopogenic warming be "better"? If global warming is a good thing and all indications are that we are contributing to it, why all they fireworks shanek? Shouldn't you be arguing against the naysayers?

If ya'll can't get this back on track I'm going to have to take off. I have better things to do then referee the Special Olympics.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Thermodynamics does not refer to ANY change. It refers to energy entering or leaving a body. If energy enters a body, its disorder increases. If energy leaves a body, its disorder DECREASES. So not all thermodynamic changes result in increased disorder.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Earth's climate is a closed system. Are you?

The earth is not a closed system, yet engineers still use the laws of thermodynamics. Go figure.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Can we please try and keep the discussion on topic?

This is a very complex issue and bringing the Kyoto protocol into it is only going to obfuscate matters. I'm fairly ambivalent on the protocol myself, in my opinion the damage is done and reducing emissions by 5% is pretty much pissing in the ocean.

But I also feel its at least a step in the right direction and indicates an effort to curb our dependence on fossil fuels. The claims its going to "ruin" the economy are utter nonsense. We were buring 5% less fossil fuels not that long ago (within everyones liftetime here) and the economy did just fine.

I also notice that snanek is now claiming that warming is "good".

Well thats fine and dandy, so shouldn't anthopogenic warming be "better"? If global warming is a good thing and all indications are that we are contributing to it, why all they fireworks shanek? Shouldn't you be arguing against the naysayers?

If ya'll can't get this back on track I'm going to have to take off. I have better things to do then referee the Special Olympics.

Well....I'm waiting....

shanek

29th September 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Acceleration is not the same as no change.

Acceleration means no change in the previous trend.

A constant speed of increase is not an accelleration.

The quote you refer to is not in the text you referred to.

That is a LIE!!!!!

"The data does not support any sea-level rise at all," Wolfgang Scherer, the director of Australia's National Tidal Facility (NTF) at Flinder's University in Adelaide says.

That's on the very link I gave you, the 8th paragraph of the story.

I never thought YOU'D sink to such low tactics! As bad as you've been, you've never sunk to the level of the likes of EvilYeti. I'm very, very disappointed. :(

shanek

29th September 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I also notice that snanek is now claiming that warming is "good".

No, I'm not, you liar. I said that there's evidence showing that it might be good. How can you claim to be a scientist yet think in such absolute terms?

Well thats fine and dandy, so shouldn't anthopogenic warming be "better"?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we're the catalyst this time for a warming trend that was caused by other catalysts in the past. But since you still refuse to address the data I posted on that, it's kind of hard to have this conversation with you.

If ya'll can't get this back on track I'm going to have to take off. I have better things to do then referee the Special Olympics.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

shanek

29th September 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The earth is not a closed system, yet engineers still use the laws of thermodynamics. Go figure.

If you actually knew anything about the 2LoT you wouldn't make such an absurd statement.

The 2LoT does apply to open systems, but the requirement that net entropy must always increase only applies to closed systems! As I showed, open systems can decrease the amount of disorder.

ΔS = Δq/T

Let's consider an energy transfer of 1000 calories out of a system (which would make it a change of -1000 calories) at 100 Kelvins. So we would have:

ΔS = -1000/100
ΔS = -10

And entropy will have decreased. You said that ALL change was an increase in disorder, and when pressed you mentioned the 2LoT, clearly showing that you meant an increase in entropy. It just ain't so.

a_unique_person

29th September 2003, 08:20 PM

A power point presentation of tide levels around australia, with graphs and trendlines

http://www.dar.csiro.au/ccrp/docs/Bill%20Mitchell.ppt

EvilYeti

29th September 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, I'm not, you liar. I said that there's evidence showing that it might be good. How can you claim to be a scientist yet think in such absolute terms?

Well, if there is good evidence why don't you accept it? A hallmark of the scientist is accepting quality evidence! Why won't you?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we're the catalyst this time for a warming trend that was caused by other catalysts in the past. But since you still refuse to address the data I posted on that, it's kind of hard to have this conversation with you.

Since your idea of good data is woo-woo nonsense from astrologers, having a serious science discussion with you is out of the question.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

F**.

rockoon

29th September 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

F**.

Wish you were HERE (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/nasm/earth.jpg)

shanek

30th September 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Well, if there is good evidence why don't you accept it? A hallmark of the scientist is accepting quality evidence! Why won't you?

Because there's other evidence that it might not be good. Hence my conclusion that we just don't know at this time!

Why do you INSIST that people must take one side or the other? That isn't what science is about!

Since your idea of good data is woo-woo nonsense from astrologers, having a serious science discussion with you is out of the question.

1) You have yet to prove that he is an astrologer, and, if he is, how that affects his data and its SUCCESSFUL predicions; and

2) You still ignore all of the data I posted from Science, Nature, and other respected peer-reviewed journals.

Kodiak

30th September 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Because there's other evidence that it might not be good. Hence my conclusion that we just don't know at this time!

Why do you INSIST that people must take one side or the other? That isn't what science is about!

Science has nothing to do with it. It all has to do with "the last bastion of socialism" - the modern environmentalist movement.

As I've already posted in this thread on page 1:

The skepticism I , and many others, have is whether the current warming trend is human caused.

Modern environmentalism, IMO, has two views: either they have an unswerving belief in the data supporting HCGW and automatically discount any and all data to the contrary, or they view all the data, both pro and con, equally, but still insist something must be done "just in case"...

They've surrendered science, skepticism, logic, and reason all in the name of fear.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Because there's other evidence that it might not be good. Hence my conclusion that we just don't know at this time!

No, you don't know because you read junk science web sites instead of science journals.

Why do you INSIST that people must take one side or the other? That isn't what science is about!

In order to be a good scienctist you have to accept good evidence. You refuse to.

1) You have yet to prove that he is an astrologer, and, if he is, how that affects his data and its SUCCESSFUL predicions; and

I've provided DOZENS of references, including books and papers Landsheidt himself has written! What more proof do you need?
He doesn't have any data! Only predictions based on astrology! And astrologers make succesful predictions all the time, exactky what random chance dictates. I see no reason Landsheidt should be any more right or wrong then other astrologers. A broken clock is right twice a day after all.

2) You still ignore all of the data I posted from Science, Nature, and other respected peer-reviewed journals.

I've tried to explain it to you, many times, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Just like you refuse to acknowledge anything contrary to your Libertarian religion.

30th September 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

F**.

Yeti, you should know by now that discourse with Shanek is impossible. All he can do is put his head in the sand, ignore the evidence, and shout nasty things at you or about you.

I'm starting to think that Diamond uses similar debate methods. He's allowed to insult you, but Nooooo, you insult him back and you've committeed the heights of offense!

30th September 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

The skepticism I , and many others, have is whether the current warming trend is human caused.

And my point is that it does not MATTER if it's caused by humans or not.

If it's happening, and I have to conclude that a CHANGE is occurring, warming appears to be occurring, thus we MUST understand and cope with the change.

The "why" is frankly not terribly relevant, because unlike Diamond's continual insistance on ultimate human helplessness, I know (as do most people) that the solution to a problem can be something other than removing the cause.

Kodiak

30th September 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by jj

And my point is that it does not MATTER if it's caused by humans or not.

If it's happening, and I have to conclude that a CHANGE is occurring, warming appears to be occurring, thus we MUST understand and cope with the change.

The "why" is frankly not terribly relevant, because unlike Diamond's continual insistance on ultimate human helplessness, I know (as do most people) that the solution to a problem can be something other than removing the cause.

If we don't know if we're causing global warming (which you concede might be the case), what makes you think we can affect a change??

Sorry, jj, but it seems you're just another well-intentioned do-gooder who has succumbed to the modern environmentalist's fear-mongering.

shanek

30th September 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Science has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't say nothing. There is evidence that humans may be responsible for the current warming trend, and it is possible that this trend may pose a problem in the future. The problem is, we don't know that to the degree of certainty to necessitate all of these prohibitive measures.

It all has to do with "the last bastion of socialism" - the modern environmentalist movement.

Well, that's really it—the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by anti-corporate Socialist activists who are merely using what science and data supports their claims as an excuse to further their political agenda.

The skepticism I , and many others, have is whether the current warming trend is human caused.

And whether or not the current warming trend actually poses a problem, which, IMO, is the more important question.

shanek

30th September 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by jj
And my point is that it does not MATTER if it's caused by humans or not.

If it's happening, and I have to conclude that a CHANGE is occurring, warming appears to be occurring, thus we MUST understand and cope with the change.

The "why" is frankly not terribly relevant, because unlike Diamond's continual insistance on ultimate human helplessness, I know (as do most people) that the solution to a problem can be something other than removing the cause.

Now, this makes perfect sense to me. We need to understand the scope of the change, and all of the results—some of which will undoubtedly be good, and some bad—and the ramifications of acting to prevent it should it prove necessary to do so.

And in order to do that, we'll need a LOT more information than we have now.

Kodiak

30th September 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by shanek
And whether or not the current warming trend actually poses a problem, which, IMO, is the more important question.

Too true!

Putin just recently stated that Russia might not mind a 1-3 degree increase in global temperature.

Therefore, they might not sign Kyoto after all...

Kodiak

30th September 2003, 01:26 PM

30th September 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

If we don't know if we're causing global warming (which you concede might be the case), what makes you think we can affect a change??

Sorry, jj, but it seems you're just another well-intentioned do-gooder who has succumbed to the modern environmentalist's fear-mongering.

It's a fact that we could put up a huge fleet of aluminized mylar "satellites" that could either reflect radiation away from the equator, or toward the poles. You choose.

That's one example. The point is that we MUST understand what's going on, and where it's headed, even if we can't "prove" a root cause.

In short, unlike what some people here seem to say, we are NOT helpless in this situation, we have a variety of technological options.

The first of which should be to trash the go(*&(&(*ed political crap and DO THE (*&(** SCIENCE.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by jj

I'm starting to think that Diamond uses similar debate methods. He's allowed to insult you, but Nooooo, you insult him back and you've committeed the heights of offense!

And to top it off, Diamond is now crying to Hal to have me banned. All for the high crime of making him look like a fool by revealing that one of his "scientific" sources is an astrologer.

I guess the woo-woo's rule the roost here. I wonder if anyone has informed Randi of this?

30th September 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

And to top it off, Diamond is now crying to Hal to have me banned. All for the high crime of making him look like a fool by revealing that one of his "scientific" sources is an astrologer.

I guess the woo-woo's rule the roost here. I wonder if anyone has informed Randi of this?

Cooollll. Where is he doing THAT?

:mad:

shanek

30th September 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Putin just recently stated that Russia might not mind a 1-3 degree increase in global temperature.

Therefore, they might not sign Kyoto after all...

"Just think of the boon Global Warming will be to the Montana Citrus Growers! Man, talk about farmers with no luck but bad..." —Tim Slagle

30th September 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by shanek

"Just think of the boon Global Warming will be to the Montana Citrus Growers! Man, talk about farmers with no luck but bad..." —Tim Slagle

Hmm, that far from the ocean?

Well, I know that Flathead lake is big, but I don't think THAT big.

shanek

30th September 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by jj
In short, unlike what some people here seem to say, we are NOT helpless in this situation, we have a variety of technological options.

So who's saying we're helpless?

Anyway, you are quite correct that we need to understand whats going on. For example, your hypothetical solution wouldn't be desirable if it turns out the tropics weren't warming up after all.

shanek

30th September 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by jj
Hmm, that far from the ocean?

Well, I know that Flathead lake is big, but I don't think THAT big.

Just wait'll the sea levels rise!

(In case you don't know, Tim Slagle's a stand-up comedian.)

dsm

30th September 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by jj

The first of which should be to trash the go(*&(&(*ed political crap and DO THE (*&(** SCIENCE.

Ah, but there's the rub -- the politicians control the purse strings containing the money that has been and would be used to fund the science.

:eek:

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by jj

Cooollll. Where is he doing THAT?

:mad:

Check out the "Penn and Teller vs John Ascroft" thread. It got a bit sidetracked into global warming because I complained about P&T's poor treatment of the subject on their cable show.

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Check out the "Penn and Teller vs John Ascroft" thread. It got a bit sidetracked into global warming because I complained about P&T's poor treatment of the subject on their cable show.

EvilYeti, not only did you not yet disprove anything P&T said on their show, but you have yet to provide evidence that the scientist is an "astrologer" and why his data is invalid. That would be like saying: "Oh he's a catholic, that's why that data is bogus."

30th September 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

So who's saying we're helpless?

Anyway, you are quite correct that we need to understand whats going on. For example, your hypothetical solution wouldn't be desirable if it turns out the tropics weren't warming up after all.

But it might be desirable if in fact the poles are cooling :)

Agreed, the example is just one possible thing that's well within technological means right now.

And Diamond, at least, appears to be arguing that we're all helpless and it's Dooooommmm.... Not just on matters of global warming, but also regarding volcano.

NOT that Yellowstone going off would be good, thank you, it would not be.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

EvilYeti, not only did you not yet disprove anything P&T said on their show, but you have yet to provide evidence that the scientist is an "astrologer" and why his data is invalid. That would be like saying: "Oh he's a catholic, that's why that data is bogus."

So you agree with Landsheidt that the Challenger disaster was due to the alignment of the planets?

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

So you agree with Landsheidt that the Challenger disaster was due to the alignment of the planets?

No, but if he says 2+2=4 I'm not going to say he's wrong. Anyway, I would appreciate if you respond to my post with a direct reply rather than some non sequitur.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

No, but if he says 2+2=4 I'm not going to say he's wrong. Anyway, I would appreciate if you respond to my post with a direct reply rather than some non sequitur.

I can't, if you actually read any of Landscheidt's drivel you will see he doesn't provide any data.

He's an astrologer, so he makes predictions on world events based on other peoples data of the motion of celestial bodies.

If you think he has data, go ahead and provide it and I will explain to you how it is not relevent and astrology is not a valid discipline.

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I can't, if you actually read any of Landscheidt's drivel you will see he doesn't provide any data.

He's an astrologer, so he makes predictions on world events based on other peoples data of the motion of celestial bodies.

If you think he has data, go ahead and provide it and I will explain to you how it is not relevent and astrology is not a valid discipline.

Fair enough. Now, what about P&T?

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Fair enough. Now, what about P&T?

Can you download a copy of their show on the web?

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Can you download a copy of their show on the web?

If you want to break a copyright law I am sure you can, otherwise you'll have to wait for the DVD.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

If you want to break a copyright law I am sure you can, otherwise you'll have to wait for the DVD.

We don't get P&T out here.

Yetis claim was that the P&T show put up the top guys from Cato against some greenie pushovers. A true analysis of the issued would have used the top scientists from both sides. He is correct in claiming that the majority of scientists in the field do agree that GW is happening and that there is an anthropogenic component.

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

We don't get P&T out here.

Yetis claim was that the P&T show put up the top guys from Cato against some greenie pushovers. A true analysis of the issued would have used the top scientists from both sides. He is correct in claiming that the majority of scientists in the field do agree that GW is happening and that there is an anthropogenic component.

They put up the guy who founded Greenpiece, to my knowledge he is not a part of Cato.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

They put up the guy who founded Greenpiece, to my knowledge he is not a part of Cato.

Transcripts even. It is a little hard to analyse something when you can't get your hands on it.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by dsm
Ah, but there's the rub -- the politicians control the purse strings containing the money that has been and would be used to fund the science.

And as long as government is funding science, it will fund whatever science is politically advantageous. How could it be otherwise?

The solution is to end government funding of scientific research and let people and businesses have more of their paycheck to fund whatever scientific research they deem necessary.

Do remember that the human genome was first broken by private researchers before the government finished theirs.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So you agree with Landsheidt that the Challenger disaster was due to the alignment of the planets?

What does that have to do with his data on how solar activity affects the weather and the SUCCESSFUL predictions that data made?

You're just committing ad hominem attacks because you don't want to face the possibility that you might be wrong about something; your ego won't let you do that at all.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And as long as government is funding science, it will fund whatever science is politically advantageous. How could it be otherwise?

The solution is to end government funding of scientific research and let people and businesses have more of their paycheck to fund whatever scientific research they deem necessary.

Do remember that the human genome was first broken by private researchers before the government finished theirs.

???? Conservative governments have to be convinced to fund GW research, because it doesn't fit in with their political views.

At least a government is elected and responsible to the voters. A private company is responsible only to it's shareholders. Is it mere coincidence that all Cato research seems to support it's beliefs?

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Fair enough. Now, what about P&T?

As I stated earlier in the thread, their presentation was biased. The only scientists they interviewed were of the the GW "skeptic" crowd, which are a tiny minority of earth scientists. Their coverage of the other side consisted of greenies and the like. I agree totally about their conclusions that the enviormental movement has been hijacked by socialists, but I don't see what that has to do with the science of global warming.

Penn's conclusion that we "just don't know" regarding global warming was also wrong. He might not know of course, as he's a magician, not a PhD climatologist. Its true we don't know what the exact outcome will be, but we DO know that it is happening and that many of the possible outcomes are very scary.

To be fair, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, but P&T only chose to expose the greenie half. That's my complaint.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I can't, if you actually read any of Landscheidt's drivel you will see he doesn't provide any data.

He provided the rate of oscillation of air pressure and sea surface temperatures, and determined that when a low negative value was reached, an El Niño resulted. He provided a direct, objective means for predicting ENSO events and showed how it was tied into varying solar activity, including the 11-year sunspot cycle, solar wind, and plasma flux from corona holes. He showed how its orbital angular momentum results in phase reversals in the aforementioned oscillations. He used this data to successfully predict El Niños TWO YEARS in advance. THAT IS DATA.

Throughout the entire report, there is NO plea to astrology and not even any MENTION of astrology.

As usual, you are lying because you don't want to examine the DATA.

If you think he has data, go ahead

Already have. You ignored it.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by shanek

What does that have to do with his data on how solar activity affects the weather and the SUCCESSFUL predictions that data made?

It shows that he is a loony.
He hasn't made any successful predictions, you are just spewing propaganda from Daly's website. Like all astrologers, he makes his predictions after the fact, or makes them so general as to be meaningless.
Find a non-biased third party science journal that has investigated his "predictions" and found them valid. Go ahead, I dare you.

Do you believe in Sylvia Brown as well?

You're just committing ad hominem attacks because you don't want to face the possibility that you might be wrong about something; your ego won't let you do that at all.

I'm very rarely wrong, especially about science issues. I'm never wrong when I say astrologers are full of baloney, or you are full of *****.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by shanek

He provided the rate of oscillation of air pressure and sea surface temperatures, and determined that when a low negative value was reached, an El Niño resulted. He provided a direct, objective means for predicting ENSO events and showed how it was tied into varying solar activity, including the 11-year sunspot cycle, solar wind, and plasma flux from corona holes. He showed how its orbital angular momentum results in phase reversals in the aforementioned oscillations. He used this data to successfully predict El Niños TWO YEARS in advance. THAT IS DATA.

Throughout the entire report, there is NO plea to astrology and not even any MENTION of astrology.

As usual, you are lying because you don't want to examine the DATA.

Already have. You ignored it.

If you want to see the real research on El Nino, go to the CSIRO DAR web site. Australia has a very intensive research program on this because it regularly causes large droughts. These guys predict El Nino, and revise their predictions and understanding of it constantly, following the scientific process.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yetis claim was that the P&T show put up the top guys from Cato against some greenie pushovers.

The closest they came to a "greenie pushover" was a girl who didn't know the first thing about global warming, the threat to the rainforests, species extinction, and logging. What EvilYeti didn't tell you was that she was the HANDPICKED SPOKESPERSON for the Rainforest Action Network. They heavily interviewed Ross Gelbspan, a highly intelligent environmental journalist who is in no way a "greenie pushover." These people are at least on par with those they interviewed on the other side: Bjørn Lomborg (author of The Skeptical Environmentalist), Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace), and Jerry Taylor (Director of Natural Resource Studies for the Cato Institute).

A true analysis of the issued would have used the top scientists from both sides.

But this wasn't what the show was about. It was about environmental hysteria and those who are spreading it. That ain't the top scientists doing it.

If EY made it sound to you like their show was intended to be a scientific examination of the data, then he was lying again.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
???? Conservative governments have to be convinced to fund GW research, because it doesn't fit in with their political views.

And liberal governments have to be convinced to fund economic research, because it doesn't fit in with their political views.

ANYTHING that doesn't fit in with the political views of whomever is currently running things isn't going to be funded. That was my point.

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
As I stated earlier in the thread, their presentation was biased. The only scientists they interviewed were of the the GW "skeptic" crowd, which are a tiny minority of earth scientists. Their coverage of the other side consisted of greenies and the like. I agree totally about their conclusions that the enviormental movement has been hijacked by socialists, but I don't see what that has to do with the science of global warming.

The title of the show was "Environmental Hysteria," not "The Science of Global Warming." Why are you misrepresenting their intentions?

Its true we don't know what the exact outcome will be, but we DO know that it is happening and that many of the possible outcomes are very scary.

And many of them aren't. And right now we don't know which of the possible outcomes is going to be the one we're stuck with.

To be fair, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, but P&T only chose to expose the greenie half. That's my complaint.

Because it's only the "greenie half" causing environmental hysteria!

shanek

30th September 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you want to see the real research on El Nino, go to the CSIRO DAR web site. Australia has a very intensive research program on this because it regularly causes large droughts. These guys predict El Nino, and revise their predictions and understanding of it constantly, following the scientific process.

If you read "How much skill was there in forecasting El Niño?" by C.W. Landsea and J.A. Knaff in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (81, 2107-2119), you'll find that twelve state-of-the-art climate models were of no use at all in predicting the 1997-1998 El Niño, which Landscheidt successfully predicted in 1995.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by shanek

If you read "How much skill was there in forecasting El Niño?" by C.W. Landsea and J.A. Knaff in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (81, 2107-2119), you'll find that twelve state-of-the-art climate models were of no use at all in predicting the 1997-1998 El Niño, which Landscheidt successfully predicted in 1995.

No, he didn't. He's a liar, like you.

His "predictions" are of the sort that cover all bases. This has been debunked on other science forums:

"So the probability is low, though not zero, that the phase 0.382 within the SFC
will release an El Niño around 2001.2."

Note that this provides an out if there is an El Nino in 2001. Next read:

"The next negative extremum in the SOI going along with an El Niño should occur
around 2002.9 (± 6 months)."

Notice that even a La Nina year like 2000 had a brief time with a negative SOI
(ie El Nino).

Looks to me like a prediction that verifies if there was an El Nino this year,
or if there wasn't an El Nino this year. Looks to me like a prediction that
verifies if there is an El Nino next year, or if there isn't an El Nino next
year. Even a brief bit of negative SOI next year would "verify" this
prediction. The Astrologer wins any way, as he didn't make any real
predictions, only some words that sound like a prediction and are not a
prediction.

dsm

30th September 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And as long as government is funding science, it will fund whatever science is politically advantageous. How could it be otherwise?

It probably can't, but it probably should.

The solution is to end government funding of scientific research and let people and businesses have more of their paycheck to fund whatever scientific research they deem necessary.

How much basic scientific research would then go by the wayside because no one chose to fund it?

Do remember that the human genome was first broken by private researchers before the government finished theirs.

One example does not a case make. Would the space program have ever gotten off the ground without government backing?

shanek

30th September 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

No, he didn't. He's a liar, like you.

His "predictions" are of the sort that cover all bases. This has been debunked on other science forums:

"So the probability is low, though not zero, that the phase 0.382 within the SFC will release an El Niño around 2001.2."

Note that this provides an out if there is an El Nino in 2001.

How can you claim to be a scientist and not understand the nature of scientific predictions? Particularly with a system as chaotic as the weather? He gave a low probability, which is what his data showed. Just like every other scientific prediction. Predictions aren't black-and-white, this will-or-will-not-happen. The probabilites and margins of error must be presented and considered, and he did that.

It's like that whole asteroid-coming-near-Earth-in-20whatever from a few years ago. An amateur astronomer found an asteroid, and based on her measurements she predicted that it would approach within the orbit of the moon. Moreover, her margin of error did allow for a collision, although it also allowed for a much more distant approach. That was her prediction.

Once better data came in, it was found that the asteroid would not come within the orbit of the moon after all. Was she "giving herself an out"? Was she "covering all bases"?

You have NO cause to accuse other people of not understanding how science works.

shanek

30th September 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by dsm
It probably can't, but it probably should.

There are a lot of things that should be but can't be. In my view, in an ideal universe I should be able to go to a guy and, through him, talk to my deceased father. I would give anything to be able to do that. But I'm not going to plonk down money on a known fraud and hope.

How much basic scientific research would then go by the wayside because no one chose to fund it?

How much is going by the wayside now? I don't think we can ever know what would or wouldn't be discovered either way. All I can tell you is, we discovered much more and innovated and invented much more at a time when the government was pretty much leaving everyone alone.

One example does not a case make. Would the space program have ever gotten off the ground without government backing?

Why wouldn't it? Most space projects now are privately funded. And we've seen the disastrous results of government cutbacks.

dsm

30th September 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Why wouldn't it? Most space projects now are privately funded. And we've seen the disastrous results of government cutbacks.

But would they have been privately funded to begin with in the 1960s? Space has demonstrated it's usefulness in certain areas and, thus, private money is coming in to further development in those areas. But what about the areas of basic research?

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by shanek

How can you claim to be a scientist and not understand the nature of scientific predictions? Particularly with a system as chaotic as the weather? He gave a low probability, which is what his data showed. Just like every other scientific prediction. Predictions aren't black-and-white, this will-or-will-not-happen. The probabilites and margins of error must be presented and considered, and he did that.

Except his probabilities and margins covered 100% of the possible outcomes. He couldn't lose.
Again I challenge you to find anyone other then Landscheidt, Daly or yourself that think he predicited an El Nino.

Once better data came in, it was found that the asteroid would not come within the orbit of the moon after all. Was she "giving herself an out"? Was she "covering all bases"?

Predicting the path of an asteroid and predicting weather patterns have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We can predict the former with a high degree of accuracy years in advance. Its simple physics. The later is a complex, chaotic system that is impossible to model precisely. Fallacy by false analogy.

You have NO cause to accuse other people of not understanding how science works.

Shanek, the fact the you are defending an astrologer for using astrology to predict El Nino's is proof postive that you are a junk science woo-woo. You have absolutely ZERO understanding of what constitutes legit research. You have no cause for making any science related claims about anyone or any thing.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Why wouldn't it? Most space projects now are privately funded. And we've seen the disastrous results of government cutbacks.

Government cutbacks forced on NASA by people with a similar ideology to you. As usual, the government leads the way, and business follows when it sees a dollar to be made.

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Government cutbacks forced on NASA by people with a similar ideology to you. As usual, the government leads the way, and business follows when it sees a dollar to be made.

I have some close relatives that work for NASA and I can tell you right now that it's not under funded. The problem it has is too much bureaucracy -- one has to go through miles of red tape to get something done and that leads to problems.

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I have some close relatives that work for NASA and I can tell you right now that it's not under funded. The problem it has is too much bureaucracy -- one has to go through miles of red tape to get something done and that leads to problems.

I could say exactly the same thing about the private company I work for.

shanek

30th September 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by dsm
But would they have been privately funded to begin with in the 1960s? Space has demonstrated it's usefulness in certain areas and, thus, private money is coming in to further development in those areas. But what about the areas of basic research?

We've been over this in many, many other threads. I KNOW I don't ask you people to repeat yourselves this much!

Grammatron

30th September 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I could say exactly the same thing about the private company I work for.

The difference is, you company has competition, NASA has none. Unless you count recent attempts by EU with its high fail rate to be it.

shanek

30th September 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Except his probabilities and margins covered 100% of the possible outcomes.

Well, duh! What's he supposed to do? Discount the possibility of a possible outcome? Include an impossible outcome? If it's possible, that means there's a non-zero probability of it occuring, which means he needs to cover it!

YOU are the one guilty of what you accuse him of. You've arranged the following responses from each of the possibilities:

He includes something impossible: "See? It can't happen! He doesn't know what he's talking about!"
He leaves out something possible: "How could he leave that out? He doesn't know what he's talking about!"
He covers all the possibilites and leaves out all the impossibilities: "He's covering his bets! He's predicting everything so he can't lose!"

You have NO IDEA what scientific predictions are. You have just lost ALL credibility as a scientist.

Predicting the path of an asteroid and predicting weather patterns have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Blah blah blah, excuse excuse excuse. The nature of the predictions is still the same. SHE covered all possible outcomes. SHE, therefore, fits your same criticism!

Shanek, the fact the you are defending an astrologer for using astrology to predict El Nino's

You have yet to even try to demonstrate that he used astrology in his proof! I gave you the link to the prediction—just point out where the astrology is! Why can't you do even the minimum amount necessary to support your accusation?

shanek

30th September 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Government cutbacks forced on NASA by people with a similar ideology to you.

That's another bald-faced lie and you know it. If it isn't, name these people and we'll see how similar their ideology is.

As usual, the government leads the way, and business follows when it sees a dollar to be made.

Yeah. That's why government made a trans-state railway first—whoops! That was the free market. Well, that's why government had the first cross country postal delivery servi—uh oh, that was the free market again! Well, that's why the government invented the telephon...uh, why they cracked the human genome firs...erm...uh...um....er....

:rolleyes:

30th September 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, duh! What's he supposed to do? Discount the possibility of a possible outcome? Include an impossible outcome? If it's possible, that means there's a non-zero probability of it occuring, which means he needs to cover it!

Ok, allow me to make a prediction:

Either there will be an El Nino this year or there will not be.

There, are I a climatologist too, now?

a_unique_person

30th September 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That's another bald-faced lie and you know it. If it isn't, name these people and we'll see how similar their ideology is.

Yeah. That's why government made a trans-state railway first—whoops! That was the free market. Well, that's why government had the first cross country postal delivery servi—uh oh, that was the free market again! Well, that's why the government invented the telephon...uh, why they cracked the human genome firs...erm...uh...um....er....

:rolleyes:

I think it was the British Government that invented the postal system.

shanek

30th September 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by jj
Ok, allow me to make a prediction:

Either there will be an El Nino this year or there will not be.

There, are I a climatologist too, now?

You didn't provide the probabilities for each of those eventualities, you didn't provide the data which led you to the conclusions, and you didn't provide the calculations linking the two.

YOU DIDN'T SHOW YOUR WORK. Landscheidt did.

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You have yet to even try to demonstrate that he used astrology in his proof! I gave you the link to the prediction—just point out where the astrology is! Why can't you do even the minimum amount necessary to support your accusation?

You claimed you gave a link to a Landscheidt article not on Daly's site. I've been unable to find this, despite re-reading all the threads. Either post the link or stop whining, I'm eager to to expose him and you as frauds.

To give you a hint of why his work is astrology and not science, I should tell you that correllation without a mechanism of causation is worthless in science. Landscheidt offers no explanation of why sunspots should cause El Ninos. It makes as much/little sense as claiming the orbit of Mars drives oil prices. Even if you can show some correlation, without a mechanism behind it the research is meaningless. This is a cornerstone of modern science.

Here's a quote from Landscheidt:

"I owe special thanks to Nigel Calder for his suggestion to
investigate associations between El Niños and special phases in the
11-year sunspot cycle. I am a convert in this respect. Before Nigel
Calder’s stimulating intervention I thought that only cycles based
on the sun’s motion about the center of mass of the solar system
could affect ENSO events.

Thats astrology, not physics. Unless you care to explain to us the physics of how sunspots can create an El Nino effect?

EvilYeti

30th September 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek

YOU DIDN'T SHOW YOUR WORK. Landscheidt did.

Where? Where did Landscheidt show the mechanism of how sunspots affect ocean currents?

rockoon

1st October 2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

To give you a hint of why his work is astrology and not science, I should tell you that correllation without a mechanism of causation is worthless in science.

I'll be sure to tell Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawkings, Faraday, Planck, etc.. etc.. etc.. that you tossed all their work in the toilet.

You, as a scientist, must realize how ignorant you sound.

hmmm

Drooper

1st October 2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

You claimed you gave a link to a Landscheidt article not on Daly's site. I've been unable to find this, despite re-reading all the threads.

Is this what you ar looking for?

Climate Change Guest Papers (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/guests.htm)

This is a link to a page containing "guest papers" to Daly's site.
Theodor Landscheidt has contributed a number, just scan or search down the page.

Drooper

1st October 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

To give you a hint of why his work is astrology and not science, I should tell you that correllation without a mechanism of causation is worthless in science. Landscheidt offers no explanation of why sunspots should cause El Ninos. It makes as much/little sense as claiming the orbit of Mars drives oil prices. Even if you can show some correlation, without a mechanism behind it the research is meaningless. This is a cornerstone of modern science.

I think Landscheidt deals with the issue of the mechanics of causality in this way:
2. Effect of solar eruptions on climate stronger than variations in irradiance

The IPCC's judgement is based on the observation that the Sun's irradiance changes only by about 0.1 percent during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle. It turns out to be untenable when the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences) as well as solar wind contributions by coronal holes are taken into consideration. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), while concomitantly global temperature increased by about 0.6°C. The energy in the solar flux is transferred to the near-Earth environment by magnetic reconnection and directly into the atmosphere by charged particles.

Energetic flares increase the Sun's UV radiation by at least 16 percent. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs this excess energy which causes local warming and circulation disturbances. General circulation models developed by Haigh (1996), Shindell et al. (1999), and Balachandran et al. (1999) confirm that circulation changes, initially induced in the stratosphere, can penetrate into the troposphere and influence temperature, air pressure, Hadley circulation, and storm tracks by changing the distribution of large amounts of energy already present in the atmosphere.

This is taken from this article:

El Nino Forecast Revisited (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/sun-enso/revisit.htm)

This rationale could be challenged of course, but not on the grounds that it is WOO WOO.

With regards to the issue of his famous forecast. There was a debate about this in an open review of his paper in 1999 (see here):Open Review (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/zipfiles/soidebat.zip)

The upshot was that Landscheidt accepted some of the criticisms that were levelle at him (including an apparent "out" for 2001) and committed himself to this:

Subject: El Niño and the Sun
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:32:59 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: Andris Auliciems <Dr.@ns.sympatico.ca, Andris@ns.sympatico.ca, Auliciems@ns.sympatico.ca>

Dear Dr. Auliciems,

Here is the new wording of my ENSO forecast you suggested:

1999.25 - 2000.4: Prevailing La Niña interrupted by neutral conditions (85% probability).

2000.5 - 2002.3: Neutral conditions, no El Niño (85% probability).

2002.55 - 2003.25: Strong El Niño peaking within this period centered on 2002.9 (95% probability).

The forecast is based on the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) published by the Department of Natural Ressources (DNR), Queensland, Australia. It measures the differences in air pressure between Tahiti and Darwin and ranges from about +30 to -30. Conditions are considered neutral when the 90-day average of the SOI stays within the range +/- 5. A 90-day average greater than +5 indicates El Niños and a more negative one than -5 La Niñas. The probabilities lower than 100% reflect a possible effect of the impending BFS phase 2007.2 that may induce instability earlier than expected.

Kind regards,

Theodor Landscheidt

On this forecast, he dispensed with the 2001 "out", defined the data, source and format and provided some probabilities.

This forecast, in my book looks pretty good.