Global Warming

Global Warming
enkidu
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Location: 日野市, 日本国

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 14
#91 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 6:07 PM:

Gramm wrote:


Here is a outline of some findings that cast doubt on the report you used.
It's important to note, CFC's are not the only cause of Ozone breakdown.

Interestingly, the below link hints at something unusual concerning the stratosphere over the Antarctic.

http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/ozone/ozlitho.html

The above link will do for now.. But I am carrying out more research.



Actually, this article doe snot cast doubt on the link I refered to earlier, on the contrary, it confirms it, and complete it by adding some new interesting information that indeed points towards a volcanic contribution to the ozone depletion. It does not invalidate however the anthropogenic contribution to such a process:


"Some scientists argue that the amount of chlorine put into the stratosphere by a major volcanic eruption rivals that of anthropogenically produced chlorine."

"rival" means that volcanic contribution may be of the order of anthropegic contribution, though this position apparently still needs more studies, as one can infer from the prudence with which it is presented ("some scientists" meaning that there is no consensus yet on the matter certainly because of lack of data).




Gramm wrote:

Now, If animals were killed off at much lower levels during the Permian, (range approx 270~300 ppm to max of 1800 ppm) then please explain how life flourished under a much higher regime of Co2 concentration?




Once again, "life" is to be taken with some precaution here, jurassic period life was mainly dinosaus whose metabolism we know very little of, as for human beings there was none at this time, and nothing proves that we could live well under such conditions. So such considerations provide very little to say that a higher level of CO2 is a wishable thing from a human point of view.


As for the conspiracy theory, I did not mean anything derogatory by that, conspiracy has been a common thing all along history, and even in the history of science, so it is perfectly normal to cast some doubt on an official position, but then, conspiracy can only exist if somebody benefits from it, or then you assume that the IPPC is simply a bunch of incompetent scientists with no special agenda in defending GW, they just do it because they don't know any better. But then, it does not explain why and how they succeeded to get the backing of the governments and of the media. So in order to account for it, I guess conspiracy is the right word.


Or maybe your position is more philosophical, and if so, I think I identify a problem in it: Maybe you believe that since we dont know for sure whether GW has an anthropogenic cause, we should not do anything. I think I already address this matter earlier, science will never provide us with certainties, it only gives us a model that works well enough for some needs and affords us to act according to some probabilities, if you wait for a proof that GW is man-caused, you will surely wait for your entire life without getting any such proof; we can't even predict the weather in 10 days, there is simply no way before long (and maybe never) we can say how a temperature increase of a few degrees will affect us.


Likely though we can say that there is higher chance that we have a GW than that we don't have one, there is also significant chance human activity is contributing to it, and there is good chance as well we will dislike too drastic a climate change (which is as well likely to result from GW), given all this, reason wants us to act to minimise this GW as much as we can. Against reason though lies a good deal of short-term individual interest. So is my view for now, and all you have said so far, does not convince me much that there is anything wrong with it; all data you have provided do not infirm in any way such a view, some actually confirm it, going back to a jurassic period is not something I wish for, CO2 is not particularly known to help human health in any way, on the contrary, here is an extract of a medical site:


"Carbon dioxide is classified as an asphyxiant gas. In the atmosphere, CO2 normally exists at concentrations between 300 and 700 ppm. Larger gas-phase concentrations of CO2 may produce signs and symptoms of increased respiratory rate, lassitude, sleepiness, headache, convulsions, dyspnea, sweating, dizziness, or narcosis. Literature citations reveal a wide variation in physiological response to exposures at certain CO2 concentrations (8.6.- 8.10.). Exposure to CO2 concentrations above 10% are generally agreed upon as posing an immediate physiologic threat (8.7.- 8.10.).

Inhalation of CO2 can produce physiological effects on the central nervous, respiratory, and the cardiovascular systems. Central nervous system (CNS) effects vary with CO2 concentrations. Signs and symptoms of CNS involvement include lassitude, drowsiness, narcosis, and convulsions. At low levels, inhalation of CO2 may cause a mild depression of the CNS. At approximately 30% CO2 a paradoxical CNS stimulation leading to convulsions and coma is seen. Carbon dioxide concentrations above 50% induce an anesthetic effect (8.9.). "


Nothing great really, and too bad for the luxuriant flora.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 237
Total Posts: 435
#92 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 7:16 PM:

enkidu wrote:

"Some scientists argue that the amount of chlorine put into the stratosphere by a major volcanic eruption rivals that of anthropogenically produced chlorine."

"rival" means that volcanic contribution may be of the order of anthropegic contribution, though this position apparently still needs more studies, as one can infer from the prudence with which it is presented ("some scientists" meaning that there is no consensus yet on the matter certainly because of lack of data).
Well good. That is a substantially different position than the one proclaiming volcanoes such as Erebus have virtually nil impact.

enkidu wrote:
Once again, "life" is to be taken with some precaution here, jurassic period life was mainly dinosaurs whose metabolism we know very little of, as for human beings there was none at this time, and nothing proves that we could live well under such conditions. So such considerations provide very little to say that a higher level of CO2 is a wish-able thing from a human point of view.
Your right, perhaps I may be considering it as a wish-able thing, (I am forever an optimistic skeptic...grin )... but clearly certain things are not deniable.

The mass extinction event...(I notice that you didn't reply to the point I made about lower Co2 levels in the Permian period) led eventually to a full recovery; certainly with new species of life, but life just like any life that uses oxygen and expires Co2. Reptiles, Birds, Fish and mammals and marsupials, are no different in this biological basic. (remember also that some paleontologists think that dinosaurs were possibly warm~blooded so that their biology couldn't have been that much different.)

enkidu wrote:
As for the conspiracy theory, I did not mean anything derogatory by that, conspiracy has been a common thing all along history, and even in the history of science, so it is perfectly normal to cast some doubt on an official position, but then, conspiracy can only exist if somebody benefits from it, or then you assume that the IPPC is simply a bunch of incompetent scientists with no special agenda in defending GW, they just do it because they don't know any better.
A couple of points. The IPCC is not made up of just scientists. Scientists in fact make up only a part of the entire operation. There are more ex-scientists (as well as scientists who have no qualification whatsoever in the field of climatology, meteorology etc), or who are being paid to work as science beauracrats. Then there are the steering committees made up of further beauracrats and politicians who are involved in panel and committee reconmendations. As Lindzen pointed out, the number of qualified scientists involved is actually quite small.

Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks, with some individuals resigning as this article points out.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/...8chris_landsea_leaves.html

That some individuals may be stupid or ignorant enough to want to present them all as nut-jobs, bad people or cranks is their problem not mine.disapproval

Furthermore, do you know how the IPCC arrives at it's interim conclusions?

Are you aware of the following passage in their IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC : Second-Order Draft **** which states on page 4 of 15 states...

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy-makers or the Overview Chapter."
(It's buried just over half way down the largest paragraph of that page) In other words...the evidence should at all times be made to fit the conclusion..

Unfortunately science doesn't work that way..the conclusions are meant to express the evidence..not the other way around.

As to the economic issues involving the IPCC.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12088

enkidu wrote:
But then, it does not explain why and how they succeeded to get the backing of the governments and of the media. So in order to account for it, I guess conspiracy is the right word.
Ever heard of the term yellow press..? This is a derogatory term that was coined to express sensationalism and gutter press tactics that involve beating up a story, exaggerating or even outright lying in order to sell more newspapers. Remember, nothing sells more copy than bad stories, or stories filled with horror or doom. People have a purient streak in them that newspapers love to feed. As for politicians, their then fired up by the mass of the public who read this sensationalist news and demand that politicians "Do something about it"... Politicians are not stupid, they sniff the wind and they act accordingly. That is where you get the likes of silver tongued snakes like Al Gore, trotting out grossly sensationalist films that make stir the pot even more.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=257909&party=rep

The intention hidden or otherwise of the IPCC is to quash debate. People who question or who raise objections to the issue are then vilified...NOTE hear how Kwalish is a classic example of a GW hack who attacks the person rather than dealing intelligently with the issues..


enkidu wrote:
Or maybe your position is more philosophical, and if so, I think I identify a problem in it: Maybe you believe that since we don't know for sure whether GW has an anthropogenic cause, we should not do anything. I think I already address this matter earlier, science will never provide us with certainties, it only gives us a model that works well enough for some needs and affords us to act according to some probabilities, if you wait for a proof that GW is man-caused, you will surely wait for your entire life without getting any such proof; we can't even predict the weather in 10 days, there is simply no way before long (and maybe never) we can say how a temperature increase of a few degrees will affect us.


Likely though we can say that there is higher chance that we have a GW than that we don't have one, there is also significant chance human activity is contributing to it, and there is good chance as well we will dislike too drastic a climate change (which is as well likely to result from GW), given all this, reason wants us to act to minimize this GW as much as we can. Against reason though lies a good deal of short-term individual interest. So is my view for now, and all you have said so far, does not convince me much that there is anything wrong with it; all data you have provided do not infirm in any way such a view, some actually confirm it, going back to a jurassic period is not something I wish for, CO2 is not particularly known to help human health in any way, on the contrary, here is an extract of a medical site:





As I have said from the outset, I am skeptical and questioning. I have carried out a great deal of research into this area over the last thirty years. I may be right I may be wrong in regards to my conclusions. But I would rather that everyone do what you and I have done, than rather follow the press without delving into the matter more deeply.

As I see it, if global warming (as caused by man) is real, then those who claim that is the case, should have no objections to people investigating or asking what may possibly be difficult questions. If the case is so strong, it should stand up to such scrutiny.


grin

Edited by Gramm on Mar 5, 2007 - 10:20 PM
Kwalish Kid
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1162
#93 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 7:20 PM:

Gramm wrote:
This creates an environment where healthy debate is quashed. People who question or who raise objections to the issue are then vilified...NOTE hear how Kwalish is a classic example of a GW hack who attacks the person rather than dealing intelligently with the issues..

Of course I attack the people making the claims. I'm not a climatologist. I have to figure out who I can trust. Do you think that I should trust someone like Lindzen over everyone else in climatology?

How is every scientific journal a member of the yellow press?
Cadrache
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 1618
#94 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 7:27 PM:

I don't mean to butt in too much, but I thought the case concerning the 'acid rains' was not initially an increase in how often we were getting acid rains, but rather that there was an increase in their acidity? (should be around 1996ish). If there is indeed more water in the atmosphere, then wouldn't we naturally have an increase in rains(globally), despite what was stated, or if there was a decrease, then the actual concentration of the varios other elements would increase by a large factor?

If I remember correctly, this is around when all the cfc rules and whatnot just first gaining alot of ground. Has the acidity gone down yet from not using as many cfcs? If so, why did it happen so soon?

I do note, that the co2 concentration / global temperature relationship seems to change at points where a sudden change in peak or trough of the co2, but not to the degree I expected. Not enough changes in the average global temperature, as well as the point where the change in temperature isn't always in the same direction as the increase or decrease of co2 levels.

Concerning the aspect of life/high c02 levels, How close of a genetic makeup are we in comparison to some of these lifeforms that existed when the co2 was alot higher? Are 'alligators' and the like that are said to have existed for so long indeed as unchanged as we believe them to be?

<- skeptic of most data concerning alot of both sides of the camp pointing towards a dominant aspect.
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 237
Total Posts: 435
#95 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 7:49 PM:

Cadrache wrote:
I don't mean to butt in too much, but I thought the case concerning the 'acid rains' was not initially an increase in how often we were getting acid rains, but rather that there was an increase in their acidity? (should be around 1996ish). If there is indeed more water in the atmosphere, then wouldn't we naturally have an increase in rains(globally), despite what was stated, or if there was a decrease, then the actual concentration of the varios other elements would increase by a large factor?
~Any chance you might be able to provide a link


Cadrache wrote:
I do note, that the co2 concentration / global temperature relationship seems to change at points where a sudden change in peak or trough of the co2, but not to the degree I expected. Not enough changes in the average global temperature, as well as the point where the change in temperature isn't always in the same direction as the increase or decrease of co2 levels.
It is an interesting question. This has long puzzled scientists looking at it. I am pretty sure, that no one knows exactly what the trigger is (if there is a trigger) or if it is a cumulative chain of effects that create a cascading event. No one really knows for sure.

Cadrache wrote:
Concerning the aspect of life/high c02 levels, How close of a genetic makeup are we in comparison to some of these lifeforms that existed when the co2 was alot higher? Are 'alligators' and the like that are said to have existed for so long indeed as unchanged as we believe them to be?


Crocodiles and frogs have lived through amazing climatic changes. We as a species branched off at some very early point, nevertheless their genetic make up is really not that much different to ours.
Cadrache
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 1618
#96 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 8:41 PM:

Cannot provide the link, though I will look for some circa. that time frame. Since it was mostly word of mouth/news, or papers from papers i've long gotten rid of; it is indeed a possiblity that they misquoted some information.

The question I had towards genetics, isn't so much as claiming they might be a huge diversification towards the 'average' genetic makeup which makes up a species now, but that there could possibly just be a small segment of old inactive genetic strain that is still within their dna, that allowed them to break up CO2 to a usable product possibly.

That 'an interesting question' point. I'll quus a little bit, on a theoretical aspect, but only slightly. Find the world water level tables and compare it to the co2/temp table. Apply a change in that radiation aspect you mentioned earlier in the post that may affect the formation of cloud creation, and add the points of division to global atmosphere, in addition to how much water would be 'absorbing' said radiation, which would possibly be causing a seperation of H and 02 particles. The 'estimated' amount of radiation hitting the 'water' could be higher then estimated back then as well, due to a possiblity of a smaller atmosphere distance from 'ground level'. Some of 'quick' drops to the amount of ocean we might have, may increase the cloud cover, and could of possibly somewhat stabilized some of the temperature equations, while the CO2 concentrations dropped. When the cloud cover reflected enough radiation, then you would see the beginning of a gradual decline in temperature. This gradual decline would be in part to thermal energy, at least up to the point where the temperature drops below a certain stable point, then it woudl drop dramatically.

During the decline, the cloud cover would start to disperse, initially allowing more heat to escape, further reducing the temperature; until the point where we again get enough radiation to hit the earths surface, which would then eventually increase the thermal temperature of the earth. At this time, more cloud cover would begin to appear.

Of course during all this, the biological co2 converters would be fluctuating due to temperatures/light levels, as well as some of the non-biological aspects that may produce more, or less CO2 then what is being able to be contained.

Confirming those fluctuations are probably easier done in your hands, since I usually suck at the 'small' things rolling eyes
Kwalish Kid
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1162
#97 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 10:07 PM:

Gramm wrote:
But have another look at that graph.

Let's totally have another look at this graph. This graph is hosted at the personal website of someone obviously connected with the coal industry. It seems to have no connection to any scientific study.

This is the standard by which we should deny the entirety of a scientific field?
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 237
Total Posts: 435
#98 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 10:47 PM:

Blind and politically biased as usual....shaking head

For your interest, the graph is based on the work of

Professor R A Bermer a research fellow at Stanford University.

stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf -

I have added it as a PDF file at the bottom of the page.

and

C R Scotese who supplied the graphical material.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It is all supported by hard science.

Unlike the infamously famous Mann Hockey stick that was put to so much use by the IPCC...rolling eyes

Gramm

Edited by Gramm on Mar 5, 2007 - 10:59 PM
Kwalish Kid
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1162
#99 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:41 PM:

Gramm wrote:
Blind and politically biased as usual....shaking head

Blind? I actually took the time to follow the source of your link. You posted the graph with some text of which you claimed not to know the source.

I'm politically biased for wanting to know the source of your information? Why should I take the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist at face value?

We have only your word that the graph is based on the work cited, as the graph is not on any link you have provided.
It is all supported by hard science.

Unlike the infamously famous Mann Hockey stick that was put to so much use by the IPCC...rolling eyes

Like the science behind critiques of the Mann work?

Readers of this thread might want to visit the website of an organization of actual climatologists on the subject.

www.realclimate.org/index.p...ding-the-hockey-stickquot/
Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 237
Total Posts: 435
#100 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 6, 2007 - 1:17 AM:

Kwalish Kid wrote:

Blind? I actually took the time to follow the source of your link. You posted the graph with some text of which you claimed not to know the source.......We have only your word that the graph is based on the work cited, as the graph is not on any link you have provided.


Let me help you Kwalish. This is the post in question.

forums.philosophyforums.com...findpost=417820#post417820

Note that there are two separate quotes on that page.

The first I posted from a site that I no longer have a link to. It is in reference to disputation surrounding some NASA statements.

In the case of the second quote (which is about Co2, and world temperatures during the carboniferous period) I provided the appropriate link.

www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/W...Carboniferous_climate.html

It really doesn't get any clearer than that; but please tell me if you need a braille print~out wink

Kwalish Kid wrote:
I'm politically biased for wanting to know the source of your information? Why should I take the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist at face value?

Is that the best you can do ? I am waiting for you to call me a Nazi, so I can invoke Godwin's law. grin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Now that we've had our fun... lets get back to business.

Kwalish Kid wrote:
Like the science behind critiques of the Mann work?


Mann has come in for plenty of criticism alright. You must have been living under a rock not to have noticed. From the moment his infamous graph came out, he came under fire from many independent professionals with no particular Global Warming axe to grind. He even came in for close scrutiny and censure from numerous IPCC scientists, as is attested in the following reproduced report.

Below are quoted excerpts from the report by Ross McKitrick : Department of Economics : University of Guelph

I have posted a PDF at the bottom of the page.

Our research shows fundamental flaws in the “hockey stick graph” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to argue that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The original hockey stick study was published by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his coauthors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

The main error affects a step called principal component analysis (PCA). We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick.

This “backgrounder” provides a road map and summary of the 3 articles

Dr. Rob van Dorland: of the IPCC.

IPCC Lead Author and climate scientist at the Dutch National Meteorological Agency.

In the NWT article he is quoted saying "it will seriously damage the image of the
IPCC.
” He added: “It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann has passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it. I think this issue will be on the agenda of the next IPCC meeting in Peking this May.”

Dr Mia Hubert, a statistician at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium.

She also agreed with our results, observing: “Tree rings with a hockey stick shape dominate the PCA with this method.”

Professor Hans von Storch, an IPCC Contributing Author and internationally-renowned expert in climate statistics at the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, concurred, calling McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on this point “entirely valid.”

Geophysical Research Letters The GRL article, “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance” <http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf> identifies what is almost certainly a computer programming error in the principal components method used in MBH98. The error causes their PC method to nearly always identify hockey stick shaped series as the “dominant pattern” in a data set (the so-called “first Principal Component” or PC1), even when the data are just random numbers.

"We carried out 10,000 simulations in which we fed “red noise”, a form of trendless random numbers, into the MBH98 algorithm.In over 99% of the cases it produced hockey stick shaped PC1 series"

"We have tried to canvass these matters in an evenhanded way in our E&E article to show what is agreed and what is not agreed."

Mann has categorically denied that his PC method generates hockey stick shaped series from red
noise, but we see no way that he will able to sustain this argument, in the face of the compelling
evidence to the contrary in our GRL paper.


Even if Mann et al. felt that it was the most appropriate method, it should have had warning labels on it.

Who paid for your research?

We have neither sought nor received funding for this work. For McKitrick, undertaking the project
has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking
this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing,
at the cost of over a year’s foregone earnings so far.


Notice how many work for, or are affiliated with the IPCC ?

Of course, according to your uber~paranoid world view, these people are all working for the CIA and are being paid to spread lies and confusion amongst the proletarian rank and file..grin

In the end, the fact that the argument still goes on (despite alleged exoneration by the NRC last year) shows that not all scientists are happy with Mann's Hockey stick work.

Gramm

Edited by Gramm on Mar 6, 2007 - 7:09 AM
locked
Download thread as
  • 20/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.