Global Warming Debate

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

By trying to exclude an explanation of the Medieval Warming Period from their report[s].

Did they actually exclude this in their reports?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I know what an overview is, and if Sen. James Inhofe isn't lying, this overview covers only a slim amount of subjects, which as expected, are the ones people know from Al Gore. Thats what I've heard.

The full report comes out in April or May, we can look at it more in full then I guess.

But Hector, maybe Sen. Inhofe just doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, because there is a large variety of studies surrounding the causes, symptoms, and effects of global warming. It's not a slim selection of subjects mainly presented by Al Gore.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Did they actually exclude this in their reports?

I don't know for sure...

But Hector, maybe Sen. Inhofe just doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, because there is a large variety of studies surrounding the causes, symptoms, and effects of global warming. It's not a slim selection of subjects mainly presented by Al Gore.

From what I've heard, he looked at it.

Not presented by Al Gore, but what people know from what they've heard from him. In other words, the report is what people expect the report to be.

[hectorberlioz]

Hey Nurv, since you trust BBC, they do mention, in a rather roundabout way, what I said about the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

[Nurvingiel]

Here's some posts from way back that I forgot to respond to. Sorry guys! Also, thank you Gaffer, I heart you so much.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hold yer horses for a sec, Nurv, I think this fellow may be referring to global dimming, which is thought to have masked the effects of global warming for long time.

There are gasses we push into the atmosphere that form smog. (Blast that memory of mine, I was pretty sure it's a sulfuric compound but I can't bloody remember, it's too late for my brain to function correctly.)

It's another sort of 'blanket' over the earth than with global warming. The smog would stop the heat penetrating too far into the atmosphere and so would reflect much of the heat back into space. However, it would also stop more light getting to the earth's surface. We wouldn't have a global warming then, but a global dimming.

In this line of thought some scientists have suggested to emit more aerosoles, which reflect to some degree, and so use global dimming to combat global warming. However, aerosols have other, equally unwanted side-effects.

Too much life on earth depends on a sufficient degree of light. Crops failures would increase significantly, rain forests would be under even more stress and the risk for respirational problems would also increase. If you want an example: the year the volcano Krakatoa (where was it again, near Indonesia, I think) erupted and hurled tonnes and tonnes of ash into the atmosphere, the consequences were even felt all the way to Brittain. It was generally known as the 'Year Without Summer'. We'd get that, only longer, if not permanently. Damn frightening thing too, if you ask me.

Now that makes a lot of sense. If that is what Dr. Wile was talking about, he should have said that for one, and for another not pretended that this was beneficial, or that it would solve our global warming problems. I feel my admittedly sarcastic (some of them) comments still stand.

Thanks for the info though!

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The sun is heating up, plain and simple. Academic and very credible research can be found easily to prove this very well known but highly supressed fact.

I read your link (the one titled Interesting link), and it is indeed interesting. It also does not say that the Sun warming is definitely the cause of global warming. If says, in fact, that we do not have enough data to know this. While it says the Sun may have made a contribution, about global warming, the article says this:

How does that look against the temperature records? It matches up pretty well with the beginning of the 20th Century. But it does not match up so well now. The surface temperature (of Earth) seems to have risen a little more dramatically than the Sun has in recent decades.

So, in terms of a straightforward link between the two, an association between the Sun and Earth, it looks like the Sun has not been the cause of most of the late 20th Century warming. It could have made a contribution.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

I think we should read more about this. Linkage?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

We only contribute 3% (facts not my opinion) to global warming.

Okay, I'm going to have to ask for data on that one too. If it's any consolation, I'll actually read it.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The sun is going threw it's natural cycle, and guess what, it's due to get, 50 % hotter than it is now, so just wait.

We are all going to diiiiieeeeeee.

Are you entirely sure that's true?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Not only is the temperature on earth is warming up but every planet in the solar system, is man causing that as well?

No, but the Sun can heat up, contribute to our global warming (like the article said), and also cause warming on other planets.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Interesting link.
http://archives.zinester.com/13183/74197.html

Ooch!!
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

The second link won't open for me.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

To repeat, on the one hand you've got the overwhelming majority of scientists and studies pointing to climate change, on the other you've got a pile of out-of-context irrelevant factoids allied with industry lobbyists. You choose whom to believe.

And choose wisely my friends.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Some fiddle with your burning Rome, sir?

You WIN at LIFE! Hahaha.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey Nurv, since you trust BBC, they do mention, in a rather roundabout way, what I said about the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

I actually don't trust the BBC particularly, but I don't mistrust them in a huge way either. I do trust the Gaffer though, Gaffer, should I trust the BBC?

Anyway, let's look at this article.

"There is an underestimation of the uncertainty, because they did not take into account other errors associated with estimating large-scale trends and temperature from observational data."

Well, that's fair. I wonder what the graph would look like and what the R-squared value is, etc.

In an article in the publication Energy and Environment, Legates and fellow climate scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas criticised Mann and Jones' chart for leaving out the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600 to 1850).

There's that little nugget you were talking about.

Why on Earth did they do this!? That last thing we need is bad science on the global warming side, giving more fuel for skeptics to disbelieve what is happening before our very eyes.

However, this really kinches it for me:

"Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much. There is such a strong difference between pre-industrial behaviour and the growth during the last 100 years or so," she said.

So, humans influence global warming? A lot? Check.

[tolkienfan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

I think we should read more about this. Linkage?

I have read about this in the book Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray. This is the only part I can find online about it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski28.html
I guess can quote the book here if you want, but the last time I didn't use an internet source people didn't believe my quote. The part in the book is about 4 paragraphs long.

[Butterbeer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaffer
Some fiddle with your burning Rome, sir?

Of course, Jenkins - just set the bridges alight first will you? ... and do try and point the cows in the right direction this time!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey Nurv, since you trust BBC, they do mention, in a rather roundabout way, what I said about the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

Hey, you found a sceptic story reported in a news web site. Well done! Have a chocolate medal. Oh wait...

Professor Legates adds that he plans to work on his analysis for publication in a scientific journal

Doh! More speculation...

Originally Posted by El Tel

when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

No, it's utterly, utterly wrong. You know the original source of that notion? Ray Bradbury. Great author; genius geologist? Not to my knowledge.

From University of North Dakota:

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.

Volcanos, as you should know, are associated with reductions in global temperature as they spew out ash which reflects the sun's rays, causing cooling. Some prof from Boston:

When we looked at the data between 1992 and 1993, the warming period of the last 20 years was interrupted because of the tiny dust particles (aerosols) shot into the atmosphere by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo

And anyway, if anyone thought about it, why have global temperatures and CO2 concentrations been rising without there being an increase in volcanic activity?

So, sit back and think, Mr Conspiracy: who is putting around these sorts of ideas, and whose purposes are you serving by repeating them?

[hectorberlioz]

Gaffer, I'd fix those quotes...you make it seem like I said ALL that, but my only quote there is the first

[Butterbeer]

Does that mean you are not 'Mr Conspiracy'?

By day, a mild mannered Traffic warden ..never meaning no harm ...

- but by night, after a radioactive cabbage bath, he turns into the Eco debunker meastro ... armed only with a healthy distaste for the evils of science and a pungent cabbagey smell ...'Conspiracy Man' spews out super toxic hot air faster than a dozen volcanoes ...

[hectorberlioz]

That would be El Tel that Gaffer is replying to in the last sections of his post.

And btw, the Hot Air Man is officially Al Gore, that guy has been jetting around in the skies, and polluting faster than you can say "Uncle Monty". I'm not joking about that either, he really has done his part for global warming...

[Butterbeer]

Nah, you're thinking of Bonny Prince charlie

[The Telcontarion]

This is in response to "Some Nurv" (lol couldn't help it) and the Gaffer

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
The sun is heating up, plain and simple. Academic and very credible research can be found easily to prove this very well known but highly supressed fact.

I read your link (the one titled Interesting link), and it is indeed interesting. It also does not say that the Sun warming is definitely the cause of global warming. If says, in fact, that we do not have enough data to know this. While it says the Sun may have made a contribution, about global warming, the article says this:

Quote:
How does that look against the temperature records? It matches up pretty well with the beginning of the 20th Century. But it does not match up so well now. The surface temperature (of Earth) seems to have risen a little more dramatically than the Sun has in recent decades.

So, in terms of a straightforward link between the two, an association between the Sun and Earth, it looks like the Sun has not been the cause of most of the late 20th Century warming. It could have made a contribution.

This is why I said it was merely interesting; I wanted to give background info which was mild on the points I brought up (for a broader view of the issue) the other link was the kicker. I find it extremely strange that the ooch link won't open, I can't even find it again. No matter, I have many others, hre they are:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rmingfacts.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...107Warming.htm

very cool additional links within the article itself.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...suvjupiter.htm

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

I think we should read more about this. Linkage?

Here is a link, it's the 7th paragraph and infact it does not say the last 100 years, it says, "recorded human history":
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co....asp?aid=12594

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
We only contribute 3% (facts not my opinion) to global warming.

Okay, I'm going to have to ask for data on that one too. If it's any consolation, I'll actually read it.

Again the link above had that info, put the new links should have simular info.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
The sun is going threw it's natural cycle, and guess what, it's due to get, 50 % hotter than it is now, so just wait.

We are all going to diiiiieeeeeee.
Are you entirely sure that's true?

Again, the ooch link, which misteriously won't open nor can I find it again, stated this. The new links will have simular info. And no we won't die, but the artic regions will become quite the vacation spot, as it was along time ago.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion
Not only is the temperature on earth is warming up but every planet in the solar system, is man causing that as well?

No, but the Sun can heat up, contribute to our global warming (like the article said), and also cause warming on other planets.

The links I gave speaks to this.

What I will say about man's pollution is that it is causing extinctions, it is making us sick (big time) and soon will cause us to be extinct if we continue with poisoning our own food supply etc. But the planet, will simply shrug it all off like an elephant shakes off a fly (if it notices it at all).

What I believe is behind the global warming agenda is the supression of emerging economies by making laws that restrict industry emmissions that are only selectively enforced, affecting only developing countries.

Also the powers that be are not going to actually tell you about a real danger when their policy is to reduce population by any means necessary.

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." (Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund)

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The sun is heating up, plain and simple. Academic and very credible research can be found easily to prove this very well known but highly supressed fact.

Of course, the sun is expected to go red giant, during which she will engulf the first few planets including the Earth. But that isn't reckoned to happen in a looooong time yet. But increased activity on the sun does not necesarily equal an increase in heat.

when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

I haven't been able to find data on that, but yet this study abstract of an eruption of the neighbouring Soufrière volcano says the effects of the expelled green house gasses were rather minimal. I'm not saying volcanoes can't have a significant impact on the atmosphere, but in my understanding, the danger is mostly from the vast quantities of ash and dust.

Not only is the temperature on earth is warming up but every planet in the solar system, is man causing that as well?

Considering we do not have scientific instruments on or around each planet in the solar system, how do we know the temperature is rising elsewhere? The article talks about Mars, Mars is understandable, but oddly Pluto is said to be melting as well. Considering New Horizons is supposed to be the first satellite that takes a decent look at Pluto in years, how do we know it would be heating up too? Rather weird, I'd like to know more.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Which makes me wonder why it was news at all. It doesn't seem to be dangerous, cows have been around for quite awhile after all...

It isn't that new a news. It was in my college Environmental Pollution text book three years ago, and considering school text books were in my opinion updated very slooowly, I'd say it's been known for some time. Although the article you read may have held new reworked data or insights on the matter.

Originally Posted by Hector

I know, I'm sorry I made it seem like that. But they are very commonly cited as examples.

No worries. I just wanted to make clear that global warming is a little more complex than the -indeed iconic- SUV's.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

By trying to exclude an explanation of the Medieval Warming Period from their report[s].

Did they? One might argue that that explanation falls outside the scope of the reports. The main focus would be the current situation and the possible future scenarios. (I probably don't have to remind anyone here who wrote papers for school or college that the professors very often said to stick to the point of the issue. At least mine did, frequently.)

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey Nurv, since you trust BBC, they do mention, in a rather roundabout way, what I said about the UN.

Hm, the article gives arguments for both sides, while one side argues some material should be included, others give decent arguments for why they were left out. The opinion with which the articles closes is that their inclusion would not have altered the out-come. It'll be interesting to see how Legates makes his version of the calculations (reading the article I take it he has not done so yet, so sofar we are only talking about hypothetical larger uncertainty ranges, not proven ones). He will have to present his evidence yet.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now that makes a lot of sense. If that is what Dr. Wile was talking about, he should have said that for one, and for another not pretended that this was beneficial, or that it would solve our global warming problems. I feel my admittedly sarcastic (some of them) comments still stand.

Yes, the mere existance of cooling gasses is indeed not enough to state that global warming can be halted. Factors like spread, concentration, behaviour and time in the atmosphere also have a significant role to play.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Quote:
when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

I haven't been able to find data on that, but yet this study abstract of an eruption of the neighbouring Soufrière volcano says the effects of the expelled green house gasses were rather minimal. I'm not saying volcanoes can't have a significant impact on the atmosphere, but in my understanding, the danger is mostly from the vast quantities of ash and dust.

Here is a link, it's the 7th paragraph and infact it does not say the last 100 years, it says, "recorded human history":
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/c...y.asp?aid=12594

[Earniel]

Oh, there I see the problem. The article says green house gasses, ash and dust combined is more than that of the human activities. I have no problem believing that, considering the vast quantities of ash and dust volcanoes can expell. But it therefore says nothing definitive on the comparison green house gasses alone.

Also, this article mentioned Mount St. Helens, earlier you were talking about Montserrat.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Oh, there I see the problem. The article says green house gasses, ash and dust combined is more than that of the human activities. I have no problem believing that, considering the vast quantities of ash and dust volcanoes can expell. But it therefore says nothing definitive on the comparison green house gasses alone.

Also, this article mentioned Mount St. Helens, earlier you were talking about Montserrat.

Yes Montserrat, is a good example of a very huge volcanic explosion. So is Mount st. helens.

[Tessar]

Also Ernayl, when you misspell her name or make a comment like 'frogs suck'.


*RUNS*

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The links I gave speaks to this.

No they don't. Unfortunately for your thesis, I read 'em (well, the ones that worked anyway).

The first is pure assertion, based on the author endlessly repeating that he's got a PhD. Also note how the sceptics all cite each other.

The second, "Two new books confirm global warming is natural". Note: books, not peer-reviewed research. That is, these people are making a fast buck for themselves with popular science tomes which tell us what we want to hear. That makes them lowlives in my book.

The third one admits the existence of climate change (I wish they'd make up their mind), but says it's the sun's fault, based on speculative observations of the solar system. They also have the charming comment:

Nazi-like genocial [sic] population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

Yay! The Hitler analogy. Go to the bottom of the class.

It's ironic that they cite Kuhn in defence of their position. It casts themselves as noble voices in the wilderness, revolutionaries who have the vision to see what the rest of the herd can't. What this reveals is that they understand precisely nothing about Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, nor about science itself.

Yes, science does proceed in revolutions. The prevailing set of assumptions about an area of study, known as a paradigm, can be overturned by a new insight. Relativity would be a good example of this: it turned physics on its head. Kuhn showed how a new revolution follows a pattern of emergence, ridicule, denial, tentative acceptance and then widespread acceptance.

But they key thing is that MOST of science is what Kuhn called "normal science", where people work within an existing paradiigm, testing and extending hypotheses by matching them up with observed data.

These climate change deniers would have us believe that they are the visionaries who are to overturn the prevailing paradigm of climate science. I can see that that is a more attractive self-image than self-serving puppet of the energy industry.

What they don't understand, or choose to ignore, is that THEIR HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T FIT THE OBSERVED DATA. The best fit is with the hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change.

Of course, it's possible that there is no climate change, and/or that we're not responsible, but the SCIENCE doesn't fit with this assertion. You can, if you want, continue to believe it, but don't pretend that you are being scientific about it.

Oh, and while we're at it, since you conveniently ignored my link to a scientific study of volcanos: let's be clear that studies suggest humans emit over a hundred times more CO2 than volcanos.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Gaffer, I'd fix those quotes...you make it seem like I said ALL that, but my only quote there is the first

I'll edit em. Sorry if there was some confusion there. Since El Tel ignored what I wrote, I guess he might have thought I was talking to you.

[Butterbeer]

The Gaffer: The second, "Two new books confirm global warming is natural". Note: books, not peer-reviewed research. That is, these people are making a fast buck for themselves with popular science tomes which tell us what we want to hear.

That makes them lowlives in my book.

The Gaffer's 'Lowlives and high profits' bestseller is out now at all good bookshops priced £9.99 ($19.98).