Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm #602019
HMC RichParticipantAn interesting article on the differing views from a variety of scientific institutions.
See, right wingers do pay attention to science.
When I first came on this blog I think I said the evidence for man-made global warming was not conclusive. I was roundly criticized for not being a proponent of the global warming crowd and fashionable mainstream media reporting on the subject.
This is a balanced article because it points out in about 15 years the possibility of finding the data that helps us get closer to the causes of temperatures rising or declining.
The article uses scientists that lean in all directions.
January 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm #746342
HMC RichParticipantOh Crumb, I meant to put this in Politics. Oh Well. Have a great Sunday!!!
January 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm #746343
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
global warming is not in doubt. Global warming has not been in doubt in the scientific community for some time.
the current debate is over “the” cause of global warming…
in the meantime, we continue to spew several of the top contending contributing factors into our atmosphere and justify it because that one might not be “the” one.
if you had a roof that was leaking for several different reasons.. some of which you couldn’t take care of right now… wouldn’t you fix those that you could anyway to cut down on the water damage?
it’s high time we started looking at the roof of our world the same way. fix what we can now and work on the rest as we can.
January 29, 2012 at 7:03 pm #746344
datamuseParticipantDaily Mail lol
January 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm #746345
NFiorentiniMemberIt has always struck me as odd when people who do not understand the science decide that the people who’ve spent their lives studying climatology, meteorology,chemistry, physics, etc., are wrong. Somehow, some columnist or some political pundit is correct, while people such as WeatherUnderground’s Dr. Jeff Masters and UW’s Dr. Cliff Mass are wrong, as are thousands of other researchers located all over the globe.
I’ll trust science before I trust pundits and conspiracy nuts.
January 29, 2012 at 7:42 pm #746346
NFiorentiniMemberBTW, who is David Rose?
Real name: Johann Hari. Degrees in social and political science (not real science…in case you’re confused). An admitted plagiarist. And an avid Wikipedia entry alterer apparently.
January 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm #746347
KenParticipantanother “scientist”, the last one quoted is Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Benny is a social anthropologist… That’s the side of anthropology that is not considered “hard science” by even other branches of anthropology.
Benny is also a German libertarian (those who think Ayn Rand was too soft….)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
This is fun. Can we find a real climate scientist in the article?
January 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm #746348
KenParticipantBTW: For more right wing knee slappers check out this thread on slashdot:
from the comments:
Claude Allegre is the first scientist cited. This is from his Wikipedia entry
Claude Allègre
In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of “psychosis created by leftists”.[6] The campus’ asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]
If wingnuts were not so freakin dangerous to the rest of us they would be hilarious.
January 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm #746349
DBPMemberSo, Rich, before I read the article you linked, can you tell me what your own take on climate change is?
—Do you believe climate change is not happening?
—It it happening, but not caused by humans?
—Is it happening, but just not as fast as people think?
And what, if anything, do you think we should do about the climate?
Thanks in advance.
–David
January 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm #746350
JiggersMemberThe Earth is billions of years old. It has always had its own climate change cycle. That’s how it regenerates itself. We are actually on the tip of n ice age. But it will take thousands of years to complete. And the human race won’t be around to feel its hell.
January 29, 2012 at 11:20 pm #746351
JoBParticipantJiggers…
nice theory
may even be true
but the simple truth is that if this is a natural progression,
we humans are accelerating it at an alarming rate
January 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm #746352
NFiorentiniMemberI for one anxiously await Dr. Jiggers’ research results and peer-reviewed papers.
January 30, 2012 at 12:00 am #746353
amaliaParticipantIf right-wingers want to “pay attention to science,” they should probably learn what it is (they could start by learning what the scientific process and peer review are).
January 30, 2012 at 1:25 am #746354
SmittyParticipantGreenland ice core data. Is this a lie?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f3742509970b-pi
Discuss.
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 am #746355
datamuseParticipantIt’s not the whole truth, that’s for sure:
1. That chart is sourced from CO2Science.org, whose position on global warming is hardly objective.
2. The chart on CO2Science.org is “adapted” (says so right on the label) from a scientific paper. I’m a librarian, so I looked up the paper in question. I wonder why CO2Science.org didn’t provide a link?
3. Possibly because if you look at the paper in question, that chart doesn’t plot ice core data at all. It’s an experimental reconstruction.
4. The paper never makes the claim that the prior two sites claim that it does. All it says is that their results are consistent with prior findings on Greenland temperature trends over the last 1000 years.
5. This paper neither claims nor proves that current warming has the same cause that warming during the Medieval Warming Period did. It postulates no cause for the MWP nor for modern climate trends. It DOES have implications for Greenland’s effects on ice-sheet melting and sea levels going forward.
6. Mann, et al published this paper in the journal Science in 2009 finding that while the MWP showed substantial warming similar to today’s in some regions, the effect was NOT global. The sole mention of this paper on CO2Science.org’s website does not mention this conclusion.
Discuss.
January 30, 2012 at 3:47 am #746356
JoBParticipantJanuary 30, 2012 at 7:54 am #746357
HMC RichParticipantDBP, thanks for being courteous. I found Mr. Rose’s article interesting because he mentioned various contributors in the scientific community. Yes, it has a sun related slant to it. There may well be different issues and models involved. It raised questions and should not questions be allowed in these discussions? Apparently in the scientific community, it is very hard to buck the prevailing theories set by “established” scientists and institutions.
David, I believe in Climate Change. I do not think man is wholly responsible for it. I want to know a percentage. We all know climate change has been a natural part of the our earth since the beginning, whenever that was. Just the fluctuations the past 2000 years has shown that. Given the “science” we have been taught we know before humans were a large population, there were major changes in the climate and temperatures. I don’t believe anybody would disagree with that.
I mean, did the world warm up when humans decimated woolly mammoths and their flatulence stopped in the last great Ice Age? Just having fun.
Volcanic injection of sulfer dioxide and volcanic sulfer aerosols in the atmosphere have caused some global cooling according to the USGS. (You can look it up Ken). The USGS also says…”the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere”. Humans generate about 80 to 270 times more carbon dioxide than the earth’s volcanic emissions. How much does this human factor relate?
My opinion is that possibly there might be some influence from the 6 Billion people on earth, but again, how much? Remember the fraudulent report on Himalayan Glaciers dissappearing soon?!
There is a scientific war going on between scientists. It is getting nasty. Climategate exposed flaws and peer review problems by the researchers. I believe 52 scientists co-authored the IPCC report. Over 1000 researchers and other scientists disagree with the findings.
I cannot conclusively make a decision regarding man’s ability to cause global warming. I do believe in the possibility. All options must be presented.
Anyway, global warming and cooling happens in cycles, it is happening now and will happen in the future.
For me the jury on all the causes is still in deliberation. Global warming could be caused by Solar Variation. Maybe they all add up to something, but it seems we have more research to read through. I watched a presentation by Henrik Svensmark. Sometimes in scientific research there is an elegance to certain theories. His data is impressive to me but I know nothing.
If you know something I do not that is fact based and not politically motivated, please share it.
I can’t tell you what we should do about something if I don’t know all or most of the causes. What I do know is that we should learn what we can, objectively, and decide on a course. Fighting pollution can’t hurt the process, but worrying about reindeer flatulence seems a bit silly to me too. I can’t stop giggling over this article about cow flatulence. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/scientists-attach-rectal-methane-collecting-backpacks-to-cows/1390
I just hope the governments of the world do not require humans to have rectal methane collecting backpacks.
My chili is finished. My legume heavy dinner might contribute to the expansion and expression of methane gases.
January 30, 2012 at 8:24 am #746358
HMC RichParticipantFor kicks, I have a few the HMC Rich Theories of man made global warming:
The Electrical Grid. Expansion of the electrical grid causes global warming on two fronts.
1. where there is electricity, there are magnetic fields. Since there is more electricity (power grids expanding ever into the wilderness) going on around the world, the earth’s rotation magnifies the dynamo effect causing a sort of magnetic friction, which in turn causes a microwave effect, which heats up the earth’s atmosphere just like your burrito gets heated up on the carousel of your microwave oven, Since there are jet streams, the earth gets the warmth spread more evenly through convection streams or currents.
2. Or, this hypothesis, It is actually windier than usual on Earth but the wind chill factor makes it seem colder and we turn up the heat in our homes, cars, buildings etc. Latent heat rises from the households into the air, which some people call atmosphere, and heats it a bit.
3. The Other Big Bang Theory. Since the repeal of Sexual Repression, more people are having sex, which generates body heat. That heat is absorbed into the atmosphere causing global warming. An interesting side effect has been noticed. When global temperatures were higher in the 50’s and 60’s, a correlated effect was found. The SAS EFFECT (Smoke After Sex Effect) was documented by the tobacco industry. Interestingly enough, more people smoked in the 50’s and 60’s in the US and other Western Countries. It was natural for everyone to light up after sex. But as the west became more aware of the health problems posed by lighting up (aka generating a secondary heat source) global warming decreased for a bit on that front. Once again the levels rose in the 90’s due to another SAS event, although much more reduced… the SCAS EFFECT((Smoking Crack After (and sometimes before))Sex) Effect. The evidence is highly volatile and addictive. Overall the evidence shows a gradual increase in man-made global warming due to another Man Made Event called (SPBS Effect) Smoking Pot Before Sex Effect. Every year more people smoke pot. The temperatures would be rising and causing the earth to bake more but since the adherents to this theory are themselves baked, they have less sex than the target groups of smokers I previously mentioned. Also, a related sub effect was observed by the last group. Global warming due to getting the munchies. Cooking that extra grub contributes to the additive effect of global warming.
Man made global warming might or might not be real but it certainly has been interesting to participate in.
January 30, 2012 at 11:05 am #746359
metrognomeParticipantThe ‘Daily Mail’ has lost so many major libel suits I’m surprised it is still publishing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
datamuse, nice job.
IF humans are one of the causes of accelerated global climate change, and I believe it is clear that we are, it is because we have arrogantly chosen to trash this planet primarily in the interests of amassing wealth, either as nations or as individuals (I guess since the Supreme Court has determined that corporations are individials, I don’t need to mention corporations separately.)
Maybe people felt that the planet was so big, the oceans so deep, the forests and jungles so huge, the air and water so plentiful, that we couldn’t possibly damage our home. Maybe they just didn’t care.
The planet is clearly making it known that we were wrong. The question is: is the plutocracy willing to reduced it’s bottom line? Are humans in general willing to sacrifice something of their lives to ensure that we have breathable air and drinkable water and that we take steps to ensure that we reduce the pressure on this planet?
I kinda doubt it. Maybe Newt’s right — we need to colonize the moon so we can destroy it as well.
January 30, 2012 at 4:33 pm #746360
munchkin22MemberI’m subscribing to HMC Rich’s theories. They’re more fun and don’t make my head hurt thinking about them.
January 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm #746361
dobroParticipantHere’s another theory. since the advent of Foxnews and universal wingnut talk radio in the 90s, the intensity of hot air released by the wingnut nation is heating the atmosphere at an alarming rate.
January 30, 2012 at 6:09 pm #746362
365StairsParticipantYes…our very little but energic Mother Earth is about 4 billion years old…give or take a few hundred million in either direction. The universe…a staggering 13.8 billion years old…
To get to this day…she’s had to naturally evolve and build herself up and tear herself down with dramatic violence many many times from the inside out. She continues to do this in similar, although with less drama, but greater impact* today.
Many other times in those many years, she’s been struck by outside influences causing any and sometimes all of the previous internal growth efforts to shift the patterns of stability and foster whole new paths.
We, as a collective, should be thanking the tremendous maturity and gravitational influence of Jupiter on a daily basis that these outside influences dont happen as often as they once did.
We should be thanking ourselves we were not around as intelligent beings in those days.
*greater impact* means that her inhabitants are greater in number and growing at a pace never perceived in “history”. 6+ Billion humans and counting….absorbing her natural resources at alarming rates without sustainable replensishment.
6+ Billion creating new & inventive industrial ways to increase our functions while we live…
6+ Billion ways damage to the protective outer layers of skin that keep us relatively safe from harmful radiation… in our truly and amazingly perfect orbital space…92 million miles away from our much needed primary energy source.
Since you’re never supposed to ask a lady her true age…that is not in question her and she’ll probably lie to you anyway. She, like our solar system siblings will continue to revolve and orbit with or without us for at least another 4.5 billion years – until our central star reaches it’s evolutionary destiny…
Anyone with intelligence who doesn’t question or understand the relative impact of 6+ Billion lives combined with our growing industrial needs and unnatural & outpaced resource absorbtion of our mother earth has missed the point.
Yes, CO2 Levels have probably been higher in mother earths violent past. But at those times, she was able to regulate those levels with precious resources that grew out of necessity and actually liked it…providing even higher levels of oxygen…and very little if any damage to our atospheric layers.
Hypocritically, I drive an SUV everyday that consumes precious fossil fuels and every day I’m sorry. I still use many of the unnaturally made plastic products but try to recycle and look forward to innovations of more natural compostable uses for the same products.
I worry every day about these hugely conflicting reports that confuse people and are the basis for this large argument…and I worry more for the next 50-100 years of projected ocean rise and cannot fathom (pardon pun) why coastal cities have not begun there migration inland already.
My position is that in the next 10 years there will be enough people that do get it and demonstrate hard factual evidence and make sustainable decisions to at least limit the damage further – perhaps gain ground by planting 100 million or more CO2 loving trees in the process…
The oceans have risen and lowered many times before…again with less of an impact* than we will face later.
January 31, 2012 at 12:46 am #746363
NFiorentiniMemberPeople who actually know what they are talking about have written extensively on the subject, all available via a Google search. If you *really* want information from someone with knowledge and expertise, I suggest Dr. Jeff Masters. But the fact that people keep listening to and repeating easily-debunked pseudoscience and jibberish from political hacks is indicative that they have no regard for what is true.
It’s sad when people cling to punditry rather than to what is true. It’s hard to imagine a stronger force for ignorance than confirmation bias.
January 31, 2012 at 12:59 am #746364
miwsParticipantRich, I can’t help but wonder what kind of detrimental effect of 40+ years of excessive power consumption from screaming Gibsons, and the collective power they’ve drawn, has had on the environment…
Mike
January 31, 2012 at 1:35 am #746365
DBPMemberdat amusing datamuse said:
I’m a librarian, so I looked up the paper in question.
Now, as we all know . . .
1) Warming is caused by heat, and
2) Librarians are totally HOT !!!!
Therefore:
3) Librarians cause warming.
(Global and otherwise.)
*************************************************************************************
On a more serious note . . .
HMC Rich, I laffed so hard at your post (#18) . . . I farted . . .
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.