Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 22, 2012 at 3:24 pm #746441
JoBParticipantkootch..
the midwest was once a dust bowl too..
within memory of our oldest citizens…
that doesn’t mean we want to pursue polices that turn it back into one.
February 22, 2012 at 6:25 pm #746442
kootchmanMemberDoesn’t mean we are either, And…the Sahara was once verdant. Climate shifts and changes and nothing in the immediate future hints at catastrophic collapse. That dust bowl thing was caused by the Homestead Act… go figure. Another government program with good intentions. gone awry. Who were the “in the know” scientists who dreamt up that one? Deep plowing in The Great American Desert? Still doing it too…tapping the aquifers and diverting water for irrigation. See Texas. today.
February 22, 2012 at 10:20 pm #746443
WorldCitizenParticipantKootch:
You didn’t watch those videos, did you? Of course you didn’t, otherwise you would have the answers to the questions you post and continue to come back to. So, ok, here we go:
“You wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for elevated CO2 levels… far above todays levels… no grasses, no grains, no fruits… no mammals.”
Very true. We would be here, and in fact ARE here, as a result of many things INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO elevated CO2 levels. That doesn’t mean that elevated CO2 levels are anything good for us as a species or to a great number of other species as well. You correctly stated the amount of CO2 in the earth and atmosphere hasn’t changed ever as it is part of a closed system. This is a very astute but incredibly short-sighted view to take. You have to understand that the CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere was lying dormant in the earth as crude oil deposits. By burning the oil, we are in fact pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously not available to trap black-body radiation in our atmosphere as it was UNDER GROUND. It is not this excess CO2 itself that is the problem for major climate change shifts, but the ever so slight increase in temperature it causes. This temperature rise of just a few degrees causes escalation of melt which in turn releases more CO2 (and even worse Methane) into the atmosphere, which causes more insulation, higher temperatures, more melt, more release of greenhouse gasses, more insulation, etc…
Now, that was a very simple and abbreviated version of what I tried to tell you was in the videos, explained in a very sober and succinct way. But you didn’t take the time to watch them, did you? There’s still time.
“Climtology trends based on 10 year studies… eons..not decades.”
The Vostok Station in Antarctica drilled an ice core sample giving accurate readings of temperature and carbon dioxide levels back 420,000 years. This clearly shows a very good understanding of *eons* of data…not decades.
Also in the videos BTW ;)
Check them out:
(I’m sorry I don’t know how to do the tiny url thing…I must learn.)
These are links to just the first five. There are double that amount and all of them clear and interesting, and based on *gasp* actual scientific analysis. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself. For all of our sakes. Please.
February 23, 2012 at 12:49 am #746444
kootchmanMemberMOST of that organic, vegetative matter… was not sequestered in coal or oil reserves. In fact it is a relative geological rarity that there is coal or oil in the first place, relative to the amount of vegetation and organic matter that has made its appearance. It was released as methane and CO2 as rotting vegetation. Very little found it’s way to fossil fuel deposits. Then sequestered more commonly in limestone (calcium carbonate) …. not at all rare. CO2 is not yet even close to being a bogeyman. In relative terms the increase is ittty bitty. You did the URL exactly right… maybe Gaia is actually doing the right thing….increasing the available free carbon to support the increasing population? You could be second guessing the “greater wisdom”… “she” has more to feed. Dueling scientists… and basic assumptions
http://www.pkchapman.com/2010/01/are-we-responsible-for-co2-in.html
I can find a hundred or more sources too… which brings us back to …. conflicting science. It ain’t resolved. Does that mean I am an unabashed fossil fuel favoring consumer? No. It means we have yet to develop less harmful, more reliable, as economic alternatives… nothing ready for prime time to sustain the scope and standard of living and the rising expectations of an increasingly more justified cry from developing nations that they too share in the benefits. of the developed world. Banning plastic bags ain’t going to dent the demand of 5 billion Chinese and soon to be as many Indians is it? I know,…its a moralistic salve .. from the texts describing your “truer than true” videos….
“I am only looking at alternative hypotheses put forward by real, professional climate researcher” ha ha ha ha… sure thing let’s dialogue with that as the premise…. zealots don;t like scientific inquiry… it so,.. well, inconvenient.
February 23, 2012 at 1:44 am #746445
JanSParticipantWorldCitizen…hopefully you are learning that there is no argument you can make with Kootchman..he is the expert on everything, he is always right, and , although it may be the field that you work in, you really don’t have all the facts..
February 23, 2012 at 3:08 pm #746446
JoBParticipantKootch…
I am thinking the drought and the fact that the area has the highest winds in the United States had something to do with the great dust bowl…
but if we buy your assertion that the Homestead Act “caused” the great dust bowl..
The environmental programs Roosevelt instituted “cured” it..
February 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm #746447
WorldCitizenParticipantKootchman:
Once Phil Chapman publishes his so-called and highly debatable claims in a scientific peer reviewed journal, I will tak them into account. As of now, he hasn’t, and to quote him as a source in the argument is not valid in the least. Thats how science works. Please tell me you understand that.
” I can find a hundred or more sources too… which brings us back to …. conflicting science. “
No you can’t. Not current peer-reviewed scientific sources. You can probably find hundreds of non-scientific sources with political ties and funding, but not actual non-biased publicly peer-reviewed scientific sources to claim legitimately the contrary of what I have been posting.
You didn’t watch those videos, did you? I read YOUR article.
Again, there’s still time.
February 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm #746448
WorldCitizenParticipantI’m sorry, that was presumptuous of me. “No you can’t.” Should have read “If you can, I’d love to see them.”
Also:
“MOST of that organic, vegetative matter… was not sequestered in coal or oil reserves. In fact it is a relative geological rarity that there is coal or oil in the first place, relative to the amount of vegetation and organic matter that has made its appearance. It was released as methane and CO2 as rotting vegetation. Very little found it’s way to fossil fuel deposits. Then sequestered more commonly in limestone (calcium carbonate) …. not at all rare.”
Very true. CO2 is held dormant in all of those things that we currently don’t really burn for energy. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t putting dormant sources of Carbon in the air via fossil fuels. Climate change science isn’t about just CO2, it just happens to be a MAJOR factor in that field. There are actually four major contributing factors to climate change. Can you name them and what role they each play?
(Here’s a hint: If you watched the videos you could…)
And I’m not trying to make these video entries the be all and end all of the debate, or ultimate truth, and the end of the story. They DO however, answer all of your little theories in a very tidy straightforward way. For all OTHER theories you put forth, I would ask you this one simple question: Where is it being sourced from? Is it a peer-reviewed scientific journal? It better be.
It may sound to you like I’m harping on or being a stickler to that little detail. And…well, I am. And for good reason.
June 24, 2012 at 5:16 am #746449
HMC RichParticipantHmmm, maybe Al Gore should revise his thoughts, as the Godfather of Global Warming has.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
Someone on here said the science is settled. Obviously not.
June 24, 2012 at 8:44 am #746450
WorldCitizenParticipantReally?
When was the last time Lovelock said something that sounded measured and rational. Aside from the “Godfather of Global Warming” moniker bestowed upon him by the people who love his headline friendly predictions, he has always been and will always remain an outlier in the realm of climate science.
Again, please look at the consensus of all the information and leave the fringe elements where they work best…at the fringe.
June 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm #746451
JoBParticipantHMCRich
“Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect”
he doesn’t say it isn’t occurring.. he says it isn’t occurring as fast as he thought it would..
he also says that the one thing science has taught us is that there is much we don’t know.
One of the things we don’t know is just how much the bell curve of global warming will accelerate and when.
and what it will affect long before we “notice” the climatic doomsday he once predicted.
June 26, 2012 at 9:12 am #746452
HMC RichParticipantYes, he did say that. But a few of you said the science was settled. Obviously there is disagreement.
I think the key is that he stated that he was independent and not bound by grants etc.
June 26, 2012 at 9:30 am #746453
HMC RichParticipantWho is fringe? Princeton is not what I would call a conservative university, but one of its professors in Physics is on the side of Man Made Global Warming skeptics.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html
Here is a link to a person who argues Happer is wrong.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/wall-street-journal-dr-william-happer-is-wrong-again/
It would be nice if the scientists would someday agree on something.
June 26, 2012 at 9:31 am #746454
kootchmanMemberPeer reviewed journals eh? I suppose that depends on your peers. we know from climatologists, data skewing is not unknown. They have a “higher calling” and if data gets in the way… bury or ignore it. Ask the UN about peer reviewed data…. that scandal was one for record.
A few randoms
UN Climate Summit Founders Amid Scandal, Credibility Crisis
Read more: http://www.readperiodicals.com/201201/2569059621.html#b#ixzz1ytFTSCwE
This week the climate scientist who was at the forefront of the scandal involving erroneous data, the withholding of evidence that did not fit the IPCC’s accepted theory on man-made global warming, and the manipulation of information, admitted that his data was wrong and that the earth may not be warming at all.
Yes indeed… peer review.
June 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm #746455
JoBParticipantkootch…
you tell that to the Penguins who are disappearing with their habitat..
i am guessing they won’t buy data skewing…
June 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm #746456
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
the science is settled…
it’s not a question of if
it is a question of when
having more time to temper the consequences of our actions is a good thing.
not evidence that we don’t need to do anything
June 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm #746457
miwsParticipantIt’s that “all or nothing” attitude, JoB.
You know that tiny little speck of paper that you just threw in the wastebasket, instead of the recycle basket?
Well……You call yourself an environmentalist?!? You are a hypocrite!
Mike
June 27, 2012 at 6:16 am #746458
HMC RichParticipantJoB, The oceans aren’t rising 20 feet. Polar Bears are thriving. The world gets warmer and cooler. Humans have helped and hurt the environment. And…
The science is not completely settled.
I can find so many highly regarded scientists who say differently. A dissenting voice from WWU (from Wikipedia), Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: “Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. … Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100.”[24]
I am not saying all of the evidence that the IPCC has is wrong but there are great discrepancies and a few downright lies associated with the data.
Remember, science should keep an open mind (unless funding goes away) but more often than not it is not open to consequential dissenting theories.
For amusement, here is a link on how certain theories that were accepted at one time were debunked. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
June 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm #746459
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
“The oceans aren’t rising 20 feet. Polar Bears are thriving.”
the oceans haven’t risen 20 feet yet.. and polar bears are facing the same loss of environment that penguins are.
as for us humans.. i just read a study that shows that just a few hours exposure to ozone.. you know. that byproduct of pollution.. can alter heart chemisty in a bad way.
running may not be so beneficial to your health depending on where you run.
ignoring the evidence can be detrimental to your health
March 31, 2013 at 6:05 am #746460
HMC RichParticipantMore science and a local tie in with the UW that Al Gore and the IPCC are wrong.
Cold is killing many more people in the UK than heat. Climate change is not following the models made up… I mean shown by the IPCC.
Even our UW scientists that study this say the information and predictions might have been exaggerated. http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_and_Zhou_2013_PNAS.pdf
I am not saying that climate change is not happening. I am saying that the IPCC and Al Gore and not correct.
Now, how much funding of their research could have been used by the British Government to heat an elderly person’s home instead? How much fuel does Al Gore use flying around in a jet that could go towards helping people in the northern climates?
There is a trend that is rising. It is called the trend of making fossil fuels much more expensive by the wacky left. Instead of helping people, the left is forcing less efficient alternative fuels on us, diminishing access to more efficient fossil fuels, and hurting the people who need it the most because of the high prices that the 99% can’t always afford. Why do your grand schemes end up hurting more than helping?
March 31, 2013 at 6:40 am #746461
JanSParticipantI got nothin’…what are you drinking these days, Rich…I’m having a bit of scotch my daughter brought me from Scotland last October
March 31, 2013 at 3:08 pm #746462
Talaki34ParticipantActually, life-threatening deviations in weather patterns (Like what we have been seeing in the USA) producing exceptional heat, cold, rain and drought would indicate a beginning of a climate shift. How long it will be before the change jumps into high gear and what it would take to produce that change, how far along we actually are into the change and how much the alteration is cyclic has been the debate.
As someone who is a moderate conservative and actually works in the fuels industry I would really like to agree 100%, but alas I cannot. This is one area where conservatives are in a far better position to exact change for the better/cheaper and consistently fail to do so. Almost every solution to fuel consumption is generally more damaging to the planet, thus giving room for the left to point and cry foul. We have given up our responsibilities for stewardship of the land over to the “Madcap Right.” Until we as the “Majority Moderate Right” take back that responsibility all we will be good for is pointing out missteps by the “Wacky Left.”
Fuels are not the only contender for mismanagement on both sides and in view of our current circumstances both environmentally and economically it is in our best interest to stop the finger pointing precipitated by the extremes of both sides and get down fixing the problems.
March 31, 2013 at 3:19 pm #746463
JoBParticipantgoodness gracious Rich… I don’t know how to tell you this but Tree Huggers didn’t cause the shifts in our weather patterns.
this is a classic case of shooting the messenger and hoping the message will go away.
it won’t. Our current behavior has fueled this tempest.. except this isn’t a teapot.. it’s our planet and it is behaving as predictably unpredictably as one would expect a planet to behave when experiencing this kind of change.
Weather patterns are shifting. We in Seattle are benefitng. Other places aren’t.
i love what Talaki34 said..
“Fuels are not the only contender for mismanagement on both sides and in view of our current circumstances both environmentally and economically it is in our best interest to stop the finger pointing precipitated by the extremes of both sides and get down fixing the problems.”
there is a place where the ideological left and the ideological right can meet… where what we used to call common sense created common ground.
it’s time we got back there and take on some of the problems that threaten to overwhelm not just our way of life here in the USA ..
but the opportunities on our entire planet.
March 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm #746464
wakefloodParticipantA brief thought on this supposedly most important and Christian of days.
Plop Jesus the Nazarene down in the middle of our little planet and have him do a quick assessment of our stewardship of surely one of the universes most heavenly places. The animals, the habitat, the air, the water, pick a piece, any piece or take it as a whole. Just what kind of lamentation might you witness?
Would he not shake his head in horror? Would he not wonder why the finest of god’s oases was turned into an outhouse for humans, over what? Greed? Stuff?
Shame on all who claim that they “know” him and yet participate in the mindful destruction.
Happy Easter.
April 1, 2013 at 2:01 pm #746465
AARParticipantAlthough I cannot claim any expertise in this area, instinctively I don’t agree with Talaki34’s statement:
“Almost every solution to fuel consumption is generally more damaging to the planet, thus giving room for the left to point and cry foul.”
I will need to look this information up, or perhaps I’m comparing apples to oranges, but how is electric and wind power more damaging to the planet than fossil fuels? Electric cars are more damaging than standard cars?
Our drinkable water continues to diminish, ice caps are melting, forests are being razed, an dirty gasses continue to pollute the planet’s environment, with hazardous effects on human, animal, plant, etc. life. Intuitively, how can we say that our actions haven’t sped up the global warming process,? I understand that historically, weather patterns do change over (long) periods of time…now I want to research the temperature change speed that occurred in prehistoric/pre-Cambrian era (no attributable man-made causes) to our current era. As if I didn’t have enough to do already :)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.