Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming » Global Warming

Global Warming

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/03/07 - 07:22 AM:	#76
Gramm wrote: Ps Kawalish, No point discussing matters with you any further until you acknowledge your errors over Lidzen. What, that I spelled his name wrong? Even cursory research will report the money he gets from oil companies for his testimony. Perhaps you felt that I called him a nutjob. To be clear, the nutjob is the other guy. Lindzen is probably, unfortunately, just a bad person. Edited by Kwalish Kid on 03/03/07 - 09:04 AM
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/03/07 - 07:54 AM:	#77
Gramm wrote: Enkidu, I say this with the greatest respect, but seriously, you should really take you own advice and READ what has been said. Notice how is says Co2 plays a part in both (cooling and warming) processes? We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. Ie Carbon dioxide leads to cooling as much as carbon dioxide leads to warming. Case closed. No, you cannot close the case on such a remark, since it leds to the idea that CO2 is cancelling itself, which is an obviously wrong idea. It thermodynamically offsets itself (in a measure that the article does not precise) in the system of the whole atmosphere, but the warming up occurs in the troposphere and the cooling down in the stratosphere, given that we are most interested in preserving the balance existing in the troposphere, we have reasons to worry about the warming up occuring there. This is a scientific statement according to the data we have and exactly in line with what this article says. It does not say that CO2 effects are cancelling each other and does not lead to say that. Besides, in your statement the "as much as" is unscientific, it assumes an equality between the cooling and warming effect, something the article does not say or hints at. Given the complexity of the process described, it would actually be quite surprising that the cooling variation is equal to the warming one. Anyway, as the article says, such a judgement, if possible at all, asks for further studies. But then again, it does not really matter whether there is such an equality or not, if the troposphere gains 20 degrees and the stratosphere looses 20 degrees, we are not going to grow wings to live up there, and the conservation of the net result wont be much of a consolation. It simply is a false problem, an attempt to divert the attention away from the real one which is the GW of the troposphere. Let's drop the Venus thing is you dislike it so much, I agree that the analogy is weak anyway, though my treatment of it did not demand a strong correlation between the entire set of conditions on these two planets. And I am not here to defend an anthopogenic interpretation of GW, but simply to assert that the GW does exist (in the troposphere). As for the true cause, I don't know them, and I don't know the details of the IPCC position. Some astronomers have indeed asserted that variations of the sun activity might contribute to a warming up of the Earth. Anyway, as I said earlier, it does not matter who or what causes it, we know that CO2 might have an effect on it and we are able to cut such emissions in a dramatic way, we already have cut the CFC emission, but we can't do much to alter the sun activity. Furthermore, predictions of economical chaos are absurd, there are many viable alternatives to CO2 producive energies. Maintaining the statu quo only aims at maintaining the current balance of power and the positions of people who benefit from it. And finally, even if there is no global warming at all, there are other very good reasons to cut CO2 emissions and shift to a cleaner source of energy: general pollution of megacities (other than CO2 but coming from the same energy), destruction of ecosystems (via exploitation or spillage), or acidic rains are largely sufficient. Edited by enkidu on 03/03/07 - 10:32 AM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/03/07 - 08:51 AM:	#78
So um... what cycle of El nino, and El nina are we in anyways? Edit: The last mention in weatherforcasts that i've looked at concerning current patterns (extremely periodic in lengthy intervals) seems to be a few years ago.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/03/07 - 04:43 PM:	#79
enkidu wrote: No, you cannot close the case on such a remark, since it leds to the idea that CO2 is cancelling itself, which is an obviously wrong idea. It thermodynamically offsets itself (in a measure that the article does not precise) in the system of the whole atmosphere, but the warming up occurs in the troposphere and the cooling down in the stratosphere, given that we are most interested in preserving the balance existing in the troposphere, we have reasons to worry about the warming up occuring there. There is the danger word.....Balance.. It is wrong to speak of atmospheric physics in this way. There is no balance, there is no stasis, there is only constant flux and mixing. The entire system is profoundly dynamic. We certainly have some things down pat, but the chemical / gaseous interactions that make up the atmosphere as a whole are simply too dynamic and complex for us to model or accurately predict. enkidu wrote: This is a scientific statement according to the data we have and exactly in line with what this article says. It does not say that CO2 effects are cancelling each other and does not lead to say that. Please do not inject the word cancelling...I never used it, nor should you. enkidu wrote: Besides, in your statement the "as much as" is unscientific, it assumes an equality between the cooling and warming effect, something the article does not say or hints at. Your right, I retract that statement. enkidu wrote: Given the complexity of the process described, it would actually be quite surprising that the cooling variation is equal to the warming one. Anyway, as the article says, such a judgement, if possible at all, asks for further studies. Agreed. As I have stated before, studies and research in the field of atmospherics etc, are all in their infancy. We have so much much more to learn. enkidu wrote: Let's drop the Venus thing since you dislike it so much, I agree that the analogy is weak anyway, though my treatment of it did not demand a strong correlation between the entire set of conditions on these two planets. I am sorry Enkidu, if you think I went at it with a sledgehammer. It's just that I have become tired of having to explain why this analogy is so fundamentally flawed. enkidu wrote: Anyway, as I said earlier, it does not matter who or what causes it, we know that CO2 might have an effect on it and we are able to cut such emissions in a dramatic way, we already have cut the CFC emission, but we can't do much to alter the sun activity. If the evidence directly implicates Co2 in relation to GW then it should be available on the net (as sourced research papers and published findings) If your up to the challenge, I'd invite you to seek it out. Secondly, as regard CFC's and the Ozone Hole...hmmmm...ever heard of Mount Erubus...? Have you an idea about what its relationship might be to the Ozone hole over the Antarctic.? http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/erebu... W.I. Rose, R.I. Chuan, and P.R. Kyle, 1985, "Rate of Sulphur Dioxide Emission from Erebus Volcano, Antarctica, December 1983", <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 318 (Aug. 22), pp. 710-712. enkidu wrote: Furthermore, predictions of economical chaos are absurd, there are many viable alternatives to CO2 producive energies. Maintaining the statu quo only aims at maintaining the current balance of power and the positions of people who benefit from it. Try telling that to the people of the third world, who don't have much choice in the matter of what type of energy they can afford to use. enkidu wrote: And finally, even if there is no global warming at all, there are other very good reasons to cut CO2 emissions and shift to a cleaner source of energy: general pollution of megacities (other than CO2 but coming from the same energy), destruction of ecosystems (via exploitation or spillage), or acidic rains are largely sufficient. Well acid rain is the product of smog...which isn't just Co2. Acid rain is largely composed of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides. In any case, have you considered the benefits of increased Co2 ? Warmer and wetter Earth. More greenery, more jungle, more forests, more cultivatable land. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/03/07 - 05:01 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/03/07 - 05:17 PM:	#80
A virtual feast of oil company talking points! Congratulations.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/03/07 - 05:27 PM:	#81
You're right for the use of the word balance, but so is the state of science that we don't know and are pretty far from having the tools to know how such a complicated system as the atmosphere will evolve, we are reduced to patching up, but we also have reason to believe that if we don't do what we can, we have high probability of experiencing unpleasant troubles. I come back to the example I gave earlier, not knowing the cause of cancer did not prevent us to act upon it, so is human condition that we can't expect to always act with a perfect knowledge of the outcome of our actions, if we follow this philosophy we end up with a fatalistic outlook that condemns us to absolute passivity. I don't subscribe to such a philosophy. Gramm wrote: Try telling that to the people of the third world, who don't have much choice in the matter of what type of energy they can afford to use. Actually, a good proportion of 3rd world people will be much better off without the actions of petroleum companies and other directly related government interventions. Choice is a matter of international will in this case, the will to struggle against government corruption, a will to empower these very people, but that supposes to take the power away from some other people, who happen to be reluctant to give it up. Third world people will be very happy with a clean, cheap energy source that cannot be hijacked by a few people, keen to preserve their power at all cost. Gramm wrote: Well acid rain is the product of smog...which isn't just Co2. Acid rain is largely composed of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides. Indeed, and smog comes from coal burning, which can be avoided. Gramm wrote: In any case, have you considered the benefits of increased Co2 ? Warmer and wetter Earth. More greenery, more jungle, more forests, more cultivatable land. I think you're joking here, as you say, we don't know what will be the outcome of even a slight change of average temperature, it might trigger a glaciation or end up in desertification, the goal is to limit the change, hoping that this slight change, is slight enough not to trigger a non-linear response that could be beyond our ability to cope with. Gramm wrote: hmmmm...ever heard of Mount Erubus...? Have you an idea about what its relationship might be to the Ozone hole over the Antarctic.? As far as I know, it is negligible: "Passively degassing volcanoes such as Kilauea and Erebus are far too weak to penetrate the stratosphere, but explosive eruptions like El Chichon and Pinatubo need to be considered in detail." from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/ If you have contradicting information, I will be happy to look at. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 03/07/07 - 12:23 PM. Reason: apostrophes are your friend, enkidu!
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/03/07 - 05:45 PM:	#82
As for the article you put with regards to Mount Erebus' activity, it does not contradict the fact that Mount Erebus is of little importance in the consideration of the ozone hole, since the authors precised that the effects of this activity were concentrated in the troposphere, while the ozone layer (and its hole) is located in the stratosphere.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/03/07 - 09:12 PM:	#83
Well Enkidu, Both Troposphere and Stratosphere aren't exactly split into two parts, with an impenetrable membrane to keep them apart. The atmosphere simply doesn't work that way. You might like to read this too.. I regret to say, I don't have the link. I downloaded it some time ago. nevertheless it is worth reading. NASA discovered that one of its satellites had detected hydrogen fluoride (HF) over the south pole. NASA's claim was made in a press conference on December 19, 1994, . NASA scientists asserted that HF can be produced only from manmade sources. Therefore, they claimed, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is the trigger that causes thinning of the ozone layer. This happens when sunlight breaks down the CFCs, freeing HF and chlorine. The chlorine then reacts with the ozone. It is incredible that NASA would release such blatantly incorrect information. To say in absolute and unequivocal terms that HF can only come from manmade sources is an assertion refuted by scientific literature. Not only is HF produced naturally, but most natural HF is produced in the Antarctic. It is surprising that NASA was surprised at this "discovery!" An article in the November 1990 Geophysical Research Letters reports the results of extensive measurements of volcanic gases taken in 1983 from Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. These results showed that hydrogen chloride (HCl) and HF emissions were 1,230 and 480 tons per day respectively. The above article goes on to explain that Mt. Erebus's HCL and HF emissions "are extremely high and comparable to the lower limits of total global volcanic emissions." Thus, Mt. Erebus spews out over 150,000 tons of HF in the Antarctica stratosphere. Only 2,480 tons per year of fluorine are theoretically released by the alleged breakup of CFCs. Even more curious is that most CFCs are produced in the northern hemisphere, yet little to no corresponding ozone thinning has occurred at the north pole! Another article in the 8/4/88 edition of Nature affirmed "Naturally degassing volcanoes also emit significant quantities of HF, some of which is directly injected into the stratosphere. Thus, volcanoes should be regarded as a significant source of tropospheric and stratospheric HF." As for the benefits of Co2...Am I joking? ...Yes and No. Co2 has been made the simplistic scapegoat in the all of the IPCC's dire forecasts. Fact is that H2O Water vapour and Methane are equally important ...if in fact more so. The only reason we focus on Co2 is that it is alleged to be the only gas we can have any degree of control over. And let us not forget that Co2 levels were hundreds of ppm (parts per million) higher in the past, rather than just the ppm level they are now. And in those bygone days, not only did the planet flourish, with the most verdant wet period ever recorded. But later into the period there were also world wide glaciers. This is known as carboniferous / paleozoic period. Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today! Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. Notice how it was 1500 ppm in the past as opposed to just 380 ppm today.. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carbon... You might enjoy reading this too..(But a warning to Kwalish Kid..don't read them son...you might get upset... ) Hooray for Global Warming http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmNWI4N2Y2... http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/200... Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/03/07 - 11:36 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/04/07 - 08:00 AM:	#84
Gramm, how can we take you any differently from someone who believes that the moon-landing was a hoax or a Holocaust denier? Your tactics are the same. Step one: Provide a skeptical argument that relies on technical knowledge. This is supposed to raise reasonable doubt, but does it really? Well, it shouldn't because those who hear about this piece of technical knowledge should ask themselves: what do people who work in the field think? The answer, of course, is that they don't take this piece of information seriously. Maybe it's because the piece of information is faulty, maybe it's because of other evidence. Step Two: Bring up a seemingly reasonable point about the relationship between truth and popularity. Of course, just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's true. But we're not simply talking about popularity. We're talking about the opinion of people who actually study the subject. In this case, the popularity of a position matters because we may reasonably assume that there is some evidence that encourages the people in the technical field to hold the positions that they do. Step Three: Propose a conspiracy. In an attempt to undercut the reasonable belief that people in a technical field know what they are doing, provide claims that show that there is some non-reasonable reason that alternative claims get rejected. It might be the government's plans to divert money to corporations through NASA. It might be the vast Zionist conspiracy. It might be the promise of lucrative research positions. (Although the only people that seem to be asking the loudest for money to research global warming are the skeptics. The majority of climatologists, though they do seek out grants, seem to be advocating for more resources to go elsewhere than their own research.) Of course, the claims of conspiracy bring us back to step one, as we enter into somewhat technical territory in order to establish the conspiracy. In order to get a full picture, however, we have to go back a bit further. Step Zero: Find someone who can appear reasonably authoritative that makes a claim, any claim, that might back up the skeptical position. This involves a host of things, including taking statements out of context, going to people outside the field, and finding people in the fringes of the technical field who are willing to make claims. However, the skeptic, be they moon hoax believer, holocaust denier, or global warming denier, is not willing to apply the same skeptical standards to their own sources. This is especially glaring in the light of the evidence readily available for the motives of these sources to provide their information. In the case of the moon landing, many individuals who promote the idea of the hoax do so as their primary source of income. In the case of Holocaust deniers, many who do so have prominent ties to racist organizations. In the case of global warming deniers, every climatologist who denies global warming is paid by the oil or coal companies or public relations firms working on their behalf. Most scientists who deny global warming are not even climatologists, and they too are paid by the same groups. In this thread, Gramm, we see you follow these same tactics. Out of the supposed hundreds of scientists opposing global warming without recompense, you produce, somehow, only those who are paid by oil companies. You take scientific claims out of context. The sad thing is, I suspect that you don't get paid.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/04/07 - 09:41 AM:	#85
As for the Mt Erebus, the link I put in reference earlier is actually contradicting the extract you pasted in your reply, so which one to believe ? As for the exchange between troposphere and stratosphere, obviously they exist, but again the page I refered to does not deny this, simply Mt Erebus is not liable to alter in any important way the stratosphere, or so they claimed. As for the evolution of CO2, well, it is fine, to have high level of CO2 if you want to destroy all evolved animal life on Earth and limit it to the seas. Modern mammal groups only appeared about 60 millions years ago, and that's when conditions started being bearable for a rapid evolution of species that eventually led to human being (only 2 million years ago), by then, the level of CO2 was well below 1000 ppm. So, indeed, if you wish to go back to a flourishing vegetable life, without nasty animals to disturb it, you may consider that high level of CO2 are a very good thing. But again, for human life to flourish, it seems we need low level of CO2. As for the National Review article, well, the problem of GW is not to have a few degrees more, it is to have unforeseen systemic consequences on the way the planet regulates itself. I have not seen Al Gore movie, this article seems to be a critic of it, fine, but GW is not Al Gore movie. The danger of GW is that we don't know what will be the outcome, what we know however is that it most likely won't be a linear response (i.e. it won't just be a nice increase of temperature, which may seem something to look for for the NR writer, while even this is very arguable, 5 to 10 degrees increase will make the equatorial zone a very difficult place to live in, and the movement of population will trigger huge political problems, likely to effect itself into conflicts), it will trigger a systemic response that can vary from a new ice age to rise of the seas or desertification, or simply a higher frequency of violent storms,...
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/04/07 - 04:45 PM:	#86
enkidu wrote: As for the Mt Erebus, the link I put in reference earlier is actually contradicting the extract you pasted in your reply, so which one to believe ? Which to believe? Well if it is to be based on science, then you have to go with the latest material. Your link dates from 1997. My link http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/erebu... is from 15th of march 2006. It is important to note that there was no direct field studies being conducted in and around Mount Erebus until 2003. enkidu wrote: As for the exchange between troposphere and stratosphere, obviously they exist, but again the page I referred to does not deny this, simply Mt Erebus is not liable to alter in any important way the stratosphere, or so they claimed. Again, you'd have to ask yourself, how is it that other volcanoes you mentioned have an effect from so far away (the explosive theory is just that), but Mount Erebus, which is not only one of the worlds biggest and continuously active volcanoes sitting directly under the ozone hole has little or no negligible effect..? enkidu wrote: As for the evolution of CO2, well, it is fine, to have high level of CO2 if you want to destroy all evolved animal life on Earth and limit it to the seas. Modern mammal groups only appeared about 60 millions years ago, and that's when conditions started being bearable for a rapid evolution of species that eventually led to human being (only 2 million years ago), by then, the level of CO2 was well below 1000 ppm. Unfortunately that is a widely held misconception. In fact as a group, mammals predate the rise of dinosaurs by a huge margin. Starting with the first Mammal-like reptiles, or Therapsids which appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. This group continued to evolve side by side with Dinosaurs. The Mammal-like Reptiles, or Therapsids first appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. They were very successful until about the end of the Permian, about 245 million years ago, when something catastrophic affected the earth and nearly all of the species then living died out. New species evolved rapidly to fill this empty habitat, among them the first dinosaurs and a few million years later the first mammals. The first mammal may never be known, but the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe is a possible contender. It is believed to be between 200 MYA and 210 MYA. However Gondwanadon tapani reported from India on the basis of a single tooth in 1994 may be an earlier contender for the title, with a claimed date of 225 MYA. http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html enkidu wrote: So, indeed, if you wish to go back to a flourishing vegetable life, without nasty animals to disturb it, you may consider that high level of CO2 are a very good thing. But again, for human life to flourish, it seems we need low level of CO2. Possibly. But if that is the case you'd need to explain how it is that the end of the Permian period : Mass extinction happened when Co2 levels were comparable to those of today? Virtually all life was wiped out. enkidu wrote: As for the National Review article, well, the problem of GW is not to have a few degrees more, it is to have unforeseen systemic consequences on the way the planet regulates itself. I have not seen Al Gore movie, this article seems to be a critic of it, fine, but GW is not Al Gore movie. The danger of GW is that we don't know what will be the outcome, what we know however is that it most likely won't be a linear response (i.e. it won't just be a nice increase of temperature, which may seem something to look for for the NR writer, while even this is very arguable, 5 to 10 degrees increase will make the equatorial zone a very difficult place to live in, and the movement of population will trigger huge political problems, likely to effect itself into conflicts), it will trigger a systemic response that can vary from a new ice age to rise of the seas or desertification, or simply a higher frequency of violent storms,... In the end it is all about rational behaviour and acting in a responsible manner to real threats based on real hard science as opposed to hysterical claims supported by pseudo or consensus science. We have to weigh up not only the consequences of NOT ACTING, but OF ACTING on False or Hysterical claims. If I may use an analogy confronting medical science ethics to illustrate my point. Medical science now has within its grasp, the ability to predict (with some degree of certainty) what diseases etc may or may not inflict an unborn child through out their lives. This gives parents the chance to terminate the foetus on the grounds of a possible future scenario where that individual might be diseased or handicapped in some way. Sounds reasonable, after all, prevention is better than cure...right...except for two things. 1. It is always prediction and as such is not always correct. A lot of unborn children that were predicted to suffer from irreversible genetically based diseases, have turned out to be just fine. 2. Even in the case that such a diseased prediction does come true, it doesn't take into account the capacity of that individual to not only survive, but to adapt (and) or be potentially cured by advances in medical knowledge and practice. However, if we used the the dubious scientific methods of Global Warming alarmists such as the IPCC to decide how we should act) over who should or should not be born) then the likes of Stephen Hawking would have never existed. Nor would have Beethoven, or many other geniuses. In the end, as I say, it pays to be skeptical of all so called scientific claims. Not because one wishes to be cynical, but because that is the approach any scientist worth his or her salt would take to to all such matters. Transparency of method and result is a fundamental to all such research and public policy concerning Global Warming. Unfortunately, this is not what we (as lay public) are getting from the IPCC, who are deliberately and intentionally selective in their claims and both secretive and obfuscating about how they arrive at their conclusions. I don't apologize for being so emphatic on this point, but it must be repeated again and again, that science should be conducted in an environment of healthy skepticism, and not behind the closed doors of unqualified 'consensus science' bureaucrats and politicians, Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/04/07 - 05:27 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/04/07 - 05:25 PM:	#87
However, if we used the the dubious scientific methods of Global Warming alarmists such as the IPCC to decide how we should act) over who should or should not be born) then the likes of Stephen Hawking would have never existed. Nor would have Beethoven, or many other geniuses. What dubious scientific methods? All you have offered is some fringe scientists who can nolonger get taken seriously in their own fields. Please provide a decent source for the claim that the IPCC actually uses a flawed methodology. Then, maybe, you can motivate an analogy. In the end, as I say, it pays to be skeptical of all so called scientific claims. Not because one wishes to be cynical, but because that is the approach any scientist worth his or her salt would take to to all such matters. You can't possibly believe this, because the you would have assumed that the climatologists that believe in global warming are skeptical of their research. Then you would realize that they hold to their conclusions despite their skepticism. However, you choose to believe the radical skeptics and deny the actual researchers. Let's ue an analogy to medical research. If you had a team of doctors that told you that you needed a painful and potentially dangerous surgery in order to save your life, would you believe them, even though you have no medical knoweldge? What if only two doctors believed that the surgery was unnecessaty? One is a doctor, paid by a cod liver oil salesman, who claims that you could avoid the surgery simply by taking a lot of cod liver oil. The other is a doctor who told people that his religion believes that the surgery is unnecessary? Transparency of method and result is a fundamental to all such research and public policy concerning Global Warming. Sure. So look at the scholarly critiques of the global warming science. They are out there. If you were serious about getting at good scientific advice, then you would look at what actual scientists in the field write for actual scientific publications. Unfortunately, this is not what we as a lay public are getting from the IPCC, who are deliberately and intentionally selective and secretive about their claims. Again, find a scientific source for this claim.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/04/07 - 07:28 PM:	#88
As for Mount Erebus, the link I put in reference earlier specifically answers all the questions you seem to have, and again the article you put in reference only discusses (and this is explicitely acknowledged by their authors) the troposphere conditions, and while there is exchanges between the troposphere and the stratosphere, these exchanges are not as simple as you assume and one cannot simply transpose the conditions in one zone to the other. Here is the whole passage in the link I provided which discuss this point: "Subject: 4.4) Volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than CFC's. Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most a few percent of the chlorine in the stratosphere. Long reply: This is one of the most persistent myths in this area. As is so often the case, there is a seed of truth at the root of the myth. Volcanic gases are rich in Hydrogen Chloride, HCl. As we have discussed, this gas is very soluble in water and is removed from the troposphere on a time scale of 1-7 days, so we can dismiss quietly simmering volcanoes as a stratospheric source, just as we can neglect sea salt and other natural sources of HCl. (In fact tropospheric HCl from volcanoes is neglible compared to HCl from sea salt.) However, we cannot use this argument to dismiss MAJOR volcanic eruptions, which can in principle inject HCl directly into the middle stratosphere. What is a "major" eruption? There is a sort of "Richter scale" for volcanic eruptions, the so-called "Volcanic explosivity index" or VEI. Like the Richter scale it is logarithmic; an eruption with a VEI of 5 is ten times "bigger" than one with a VEI of 4. To give a sense of magnitude, I list below the VEI for some familiar recent and historic eruptions: Eruption VEI Stratospheric Aerosol, Megatons (Mt) Kilauea 0-1 - Erebus, 1976-84 1-2 - Augustine, 1976 4 0.6 St Helen's, 1980 5 (barely) 0.55 El Chichon, 1982 5 12 Pinatubo, 1991 5-6 30 Krakatau, 1883 6 50 (estimated) Tambora, 1815 7 80-200 (estimated) [Smithsonian] [Symonds et al.] [Sigurdsson] [Pinatubo] [WMO 1988] [Bluth et al.] [McCormick et al. 1995] Roughly speaking, an eruption with VEI>3 can penetrate the stratosphere. An eruption with VEI>5 can send a plume up to 25km, in the middle of the ozone layer. Such eruptions occur about once a decade. Since the VEI is not designed specifically to measure a volcano's impact on the stratosphere, I have also listed the total mass of stratospheric aerosols (mostly sulfates) produced by the eruption. (Note that St. Helens produced much less aerosol than El Chichon - St. Helens blew out sideways, dumping a large ash cloud over eastern Washington, rather than ejecting its gases into the stratosphere.) Passively degassing volcanoes such as Kilauea and Erebus are far too weak to penetrate the stratosphere, but explosive eruptions like El Chichon and Pinatubo need to be considered in detail. Before 1982, there were no direct measurements of the amount of HCl that an explosive eruption put into the stratosphere. There were, however, estimates of the _total_ chlorine production from an eruption, based upon such geophysical techniques as analysis of glass inclusions trapped in volcanic rocks. [Cadle] [Johnston] [Sigurdsson] [Symonds et al.] There was much debate about how much of the emitted chlorine reached the stratosphere; estimates ranged from < 0.03 Mt/year [Cadle] to 0.1-1.0 Mt/year [Symonds et al.]. During the 1980's emissions of CFC's and related compounds contributed ~1 Mt of chlorine per year to the atmosphere. [Prather et al.] This results in an annual flux of >0.3 Mt/yr of chlorine into the stratosphere. The _highest_ estimates of volcanic emissions - upper limits calculated by assuming that _all_ of the HCl from a major eruption reached and stayed in the stratosphere - were thus of the same order of magnitude as human sources. (There is no support whatsoever for the claim that a _single_ recent eruption produced ~500 times as much chlorine as a year's worth of CFC production. This wildly inaccurate number appears to have originated as an editorial mistake in a scientific encyclopedia.) It is very difficult to reconcile the higher estimates with the altitude and time-dependence of stratospheric HCl. The volcanic contribution to the upper stratosphere should come in sudden bursts following major eruptions, and it should initially be largest in the vicinity of the volcanic plume. Since vertical transport in the stratosphere is slow, one would expect to see the altitude profile change abruptly after a major eruption, whereas it has maintained more-or-less the same shape since it was first measured in 1975. One would also not expect a strong correlation between HCl and organochlorine compounds if volcanic injection were contributing ~50% of the total HCl. If half of the HCl has an inorganic origin, where is all that _organic_ stratospheric chlorine going? The issue has now been largely resolved by _direct_ measurements of the stratospheric HCl produced by El Chichon, the most important eruption of the 1980's, and Pinatubo, the largest since 1912. It was found that El Chichon injected 0.04 Mt of HCl [Mankin and Coffey]. The much bigger eruption of Pinatubo produced less [Mankin, Coffey and Goldman] [Wallace and Livingston 1992], - in fact the authors were not sure that they had measured _any_ significant increase. Analysis of ice cores leads to similar conclusions for historic eruptions [Delmas]. The ice cores show significantly enhanced levels of sulfur following major historic eruptions, but no enhancement in chlorine, showing that the chlorine produced in the eruption did not survive long enough to be transported to polar regions. It is clear, then, that even though major eruptions produce large amounts of chlorine in the form of HCl, most of that HCl either never enters the stratosphere, or is very rapidly removed from it. Recent model calculations [Pinto et al.] [Tabazadeh and Turco] have clarified the physics involved. A volcanic plume contains approximately 1000 times as much water vapor as HCl. As the plume rises and cools the water condenses, capturing the HCl as it does so and returning it to the earth in the extensive rain showers that typically follow major eruptions. HCl can also be removed if it is adsorbed on ice or ash particles. Model calculations show that more than 99% of the HCl is removed by these processes, in good agreement with observations." Gramm wrote: Unfortunately that is a widely held misconception. In fact as a group, mammals predate the rise of dinosaurs by a huge margin. Starting with the first Mammal-like reptiles, or Therapsids which appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. This group continued to evolve side by side with Dinosaurs. http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html Possibly. But if that is the case you'd need to explain how it is that the end of the Permian period : Mass extinction happened when Co2 levels were comparable to those of today? Virtually all life was wiped out. This is self-defeating as you provide yourself with the argument against your very point, coincinding with the mass extinction is a surge in the CO2 concentration as clearly shown by the graphics you attached. That indicates that high level of CO2 are likely lethal for most of animal life. Ultimately though you seem to defend a conspiracy theory of a substantial part of the scientific community , well, why not ? But in which interest ? Who has the slightest interest to advocate a GW, in order to decrease and stop CO2 emissions (which, anyway, as I said earlier, does not need GW to be acknowledged as a very serious problem).
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/05/07 - 01:54 AM:	#89
enkidu wrote: As for Mount Erebus, the link I put in reference earlier specifically answers all the questions you seem to have, and again the article you put in reference only discusses (and this is explicitely acknowledged by their authors) the troposphere conditions, and while there is exchanges between the troposphere and the stratosphere, these exchanges are not as simple as you assume and one cannot simply transpose the conditions in one zone to the other. Here is the whole passage in the link I provided which discuss this point: "Subject: 4.4) Volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than CFC's. Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most a few percent of the chlorine in the stratosphere. 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. enkidu wrote: This is self-defeating as you provide yourself with the argument against your very point, coincinding with the mass extinction is a surge in the CO2 concentration as clearly shown by the graphics you attached. That indicates that high level of CO2 are likely lethal for most of animal life. Two things. I was very honest in providing you with that material. I presented it to you in a spirit of impartiality. The second point to note. is that there is on going debate as to just exactly when the Permian extinction happened in relation to the Co2 levels. This is still far from resolved. Depending on which authority you speak to, some paleontologists think is started when the Co2 level were at there lowest, with the consequent rise in Co2 levels coming AFTER the mass die off. Others, like you seem to be siding with, take the position that the rises in Co2 precipitated the mass extinction event. Some are trying to link the Co2 rise with a "suffocating" event, but we're talking about rising Co2 levels that took millions of years to approach their peak. But have another look at that graph. Notice how it rises to approximately 2800 ppm in the Jurassic period? 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? You see Enkidu, this is a problem that has stumped scientists. Simple fact is, we don't really know. No one really knows for sure. And if anyone tries to tell you it is a fore gone conclusion based purely on some labaratory model...then think long and hard about what proofs they are offering. enkidu wrote: Ultimately though you seem to defend a conspiracy theory of a substantial part of the scientific community , well, why not ? But in which interest ? Who has the slightest interest to advocate a GW, in order to decrease and stop CO2 emissions (which, anyway, as I said earlier, does not need GW to be acknowledged as a very serious problem). I am a bit disappointed that you should come to such a hasty an poorly considered assessment of my skeptical position. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/05/07 - 07:06 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/05/07 - 02:21 AM:	#90
I am a bit disappointed that you should come to such a hasty an poorly considered assessment of my skeptical position. Right. Let's see: 1) You know how to cut and paste, yet the links you provide almost always run counter to your position (the only exceptions are the non-scientific ones). This is indicative that you don't actually know the science, you merely wish to attack the mainstream science. Also indicative of this is that you are only skeptical about the positions of mainstream science and accept the challenges of fringe scientists without comment. You also claim to be able to provide hundreds of climatologists that oppose global warming, yet you cannot produce any.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1074

Posted 03/05/07 - 03:07 PM:	#91
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.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/05/07 - 04:16 PM:	#92
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... )... 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. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/arch... 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. 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. Edited by Gramm on 03/05/07 - 07:20 PM
Attached Files: Ipcc draft proceedures.PDF (457 KB, 0 downloads) Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/05/07 - 04:20 PM:	#93
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?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/05/07 - 04:27 PM:	#94
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

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/05/07 - 04:49 PM:	#95
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.
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 835

Posted 03/05/07 - 05:41 PM:	#96
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

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/05/07 - 07:07 PM:	#97
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?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/05/07 - 07:47 PM:	#98
Blind and politically biased as usual.... 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... Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/05/07 - 07:59 PM
Attached Files: CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf (257 KB, 1 downloads) Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2577

Posted 03/05/07 - 08:41 PM:	#99
Gramm wrote: Blind and politically biased as usual.... 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... 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. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200...
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 03/05/07 - 10:17 PM:	#100
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. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?i... 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. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carbon... It really doesn't get any clearer than that; but please tell me if you need a braille print~out 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. 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.. 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 03/06/07 - 04:09 AM
Attached Files: MM-W05-background.pdf (267 KB, 1 downloads) Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.