1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming - The New Fear?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by mauron, 10 Apr 2007.

  1. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,807

    Location: Bristol

    But the bit in the middle you chose to ignore does!
    There's the weight and matter you seek, it wasn't very well hidden. That's cosmogenesis' argument - don't let the "Yawn" and "End of" distract you.
     
  2. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    And of course the IPCC are a bunch of liars and you know better. James Hansen (head of NASA's GISS) does not know what he is talking about along with many dozens of other climate scientists whilst people with very little peer reviewed work in the arena of climate science spout nonsense in the popular press because the popular press knows nothing of the mechanisms of science.

    Most peoplw with a grudge against global warming bring up arguments about environmentalists (as if they know the facts) and spout on about how alarmists they are and how the world economy will suffer if we do something about it. Either way global warming is real and here, the most established way of providing evidence etc has been made via peer reviewed science.

    There is a signature in fossil fuel Co2 that is unique and known about. The proof is here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

    Not real climate again you say, well yes of course because it is a scientific website on climate science and speaks mainly of only what is known.

    Isotopes of Carbon tell the story. Its in the article Von.
     
    Last edited: 20 Jun 2007
  3. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    What would be sufficient to disagree with the theory?

    Can the theory ever be proved to be wrong ?
     
  4. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    Depends what you mean by theory ? Scientific Theory means a law or more specifically a model of reality thats possibly makes predictions that can be verfied by either experiiment or by data from the real world.

    AGW or the argument that burning fossil fuels leaves CO2 in the atmosphere that traps long wave radiation and hence warms the atmosphere has been shown to be correct in the lab via experiment and is not being shown to be correct in the real world via raw data.

    If only it were not true.
     
  5. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    Ok, let me give you a scenario...

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps increasing due to man-made emmisions, this 'global' temperature falls year on year. Would that disprove that global warming is happening, and that 'global' warming has nothing to do with CO2 ?
    How many years of temperature falling would be sufficient to call this a load of rubbish ?
     
  6. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    And if temps are actually rising in line with the expectations as indeed they are then there would be no need to call it a load of rubbish would there ?

    To answer your suggestion of cooling I reckon that a decade or so of global cooling would suffice.
     
  7. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,807

    Location: Bristol

    Yeah a decade of cooling – without alternative cause. I mean if we have a large volcano next week whose emissions correlate with the magnitude of observed cooling then AGW theory would still be sound, even though temperatures would be down.
     
  8. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Please stop being such a baby. IPCC are not bunch of liars. IPCC, as the name Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests, is a body established to prove the theory of climate change. In similar way similar comitee within National Science Board was established in 1970ies to prove, quite successfully, if I may add, theory of global cooling. And Holy Inquisition was established to fix, very serious at the time, problem of witches and other devil spawn infecting the (flat at the time, and supported by four tortoise) planet.
    IPCC is also body with absolute voice on the subject and there is no intergovernmental body that could veto or watch over their work. If majority of these hand picked, specifically selected propagandists (to slightly offset your "denilists" term there) says the earth is square, it is passed as undeniable truth.
    You can see why one could have, for the lack of better word, beef with such panel, don't you? It's like putting representatives of tabacco industry in charge of smoking ban. I don't think they lie and I believe they mean every bit of their research. It doesn't mean it's not wrong on the bigger scale. You can easily find scientific research to prove smoking weed helps people, fights cancer and saves lives. And yet common sense would dictate we don't go and all get stoned just yet.

    Read up on scientists and eugenics in US and Europe in 1930ies. Then read up on Aushwitz and get the picture of just how wrong can one go by following "peer reviewed science".


    I really wanted you to tell with your own words what you read and understood on the subject. But ok.. let's just follow the junk science conclusions - "the total change in the ratio of fossil fuel unique CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%". How's, for example reducing even impossible to achieve one third of 15% of British fossil fuel carbon emissions of 2.3% of that 3.5% human made emissions going to impact that 0.15%. Take your time, expand on that for me. Please.
     
    Last edited: 20 Jun 2007
  9. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    There was no valid scientifically accepted peer reviewed "global cooling ice age is coming" theory. It was a media over reaction to some suggestions of possible cooling by some scientists. It was not a balance of evidence as global warming is. Global Warming on the other hand has, it balances up cooling and warming factors and find that warming is very high relative to cooling and hence the term Global Warming is in use.

    peer review is necessary but not an exhaustive method of validating scientific work. I do not know enough about Eugenics to comment.

    On the subject of emission I take the posiiton postulated by realclimate, namely that there is a scientific empirical bases via isotopes of carbon human emissions to be validly linked to what is in the atmosphere above and beyond what was existed before 1750 (when coal burning began in earnest).
     
  10. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,807

    Location: Bristol

    v0n, you do have a peculiar view on the IPCC. You do realise their consensus is supported by the government appointed scientists from countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the US as well as UK and Germany?
     
  11. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    You choose to see consensus. If you look closer you'll realise a lot of scientists (even within IPCC) don't agree with man made impact or at least with enforcing ridiculous quotas that won't change anything in global scale but instead push emerging markets and third world even deeper into medieval times. You will also notice that the less government money involved in studies the less consensus there is. It's virtually impossible at this point to do anything remotely involving environmental research unless you start looking for melting glaciers, just like couple of decades ago everyone asking for a grant had to include holes in layers to some degree.
    It gets stupid, my previous employer - company riding last waves of dot com boom found itself sinking fast on the rapidly shrinking field of economic market research. They discovered new religion - producing carbon offsets out of their four letters for big players. The whole issue of man made global warming, especially from the viewpoint of alledged SOLUTIONS is unbelievably flawed. The graphs, hockey sticks, the hype, the faces serving it to us, the media hysteria, the pressure to spend money to no end on completely idiotic things. Every single thing enforced on us in the last 5 years had CO2 agenda to some degree, every single thing planned for us in the next 5 years has greenpiss all over it as well. All that in the name of doomsday prognosis that have no verifiable background, no long terms science behind it and just about any monkey face mickey mouse politician and pseudo scientist plastered over it.
    There is no consensus about anything. And there is more than reasonable doubt. In terms of real data, unbeatable data, it's all in thick, large bull***t brackets. The best you guys could do was keep pointing to the same website, the same people, the same paranoid Hanson prophecies for what, 7 pages? You won't accept different reasearches, you won't accept other scientists rising eyebrows to IPCC prognosis, you won't accept we are now doing probably more damage to ourselves than this whole thing will ever be worth in your lifetime. You won't accept it even if we have freezing winters and summers ******* with rain for the next decade. You reached the point where everything and anything can prove your point as you see it fit. You might be 18 year old and this might be the first time your world is supposed to come to an end, I, unfortunately, have a chance to observe flogging the same "the end is near" plaque for 4 decades. It gets tiresome. You get jaded watching it over and over again. The whole "dolphin friendly tuna" state of mind and "catch your bus to work while I fly my private jet to G8 summit to fix the planet" solutions to pseudo problems served on plate of "scientific proofs" at some point just stop making any impact. If you look for anomalies you will always find them.
     
  12. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    Von

    There is scientific consensus I am afraid and it is a consensus of it is happenning. IPCC scientists might disagree on certain things but the balance of evidence is in and the earths atmosphere and oceans are warming.

    As for the solution, I agree with you, it is at present a hopeless quest without significant global governmental intervention, legislation and probably subsidy. I have looked into alternatives and what can be done. Plenty can be done but little will in the time frame available to us. I best hope is peak oil, gas and yes coal. Kill millions though I would imagine and throttle progress.
     
  13. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    There is a general consensus that there is such thing as global warming. There is however no consensus whatsoever about it being man made. The infamous case of over 900 global warming related researches, abstracts and documents from Institute for Scientific Information database spring to mind. Propagandist History Professor Naomi Oreskes claimed in her "Beyond Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" 75% of material backed antropogenic cause of global warming. Upon closer look it turned out Oreskes pulled her numbers with bias and in fact only 12 out of over 900 abstracts explicitly and fully supported the theory of global warming being caused by human activity. Then you have full bag of open letters, pleas and postulates over the last two decades - anything from 4000 strong Heidelberg Appeal to stop flogging made up causes based on junk science all the way to recent protests from various scientific bodies against Stern Review. We discussed some of those issues already in this topic as well - the lack of consensus on hockey stick etc. You chose to filter out inconvenient critics back then too.
    And let's not forget lack of fair play from IPCC itself - refusal to release data for hockey stick, leading authors admitting they have no input on shape of published researches beyond first two drafts and having no control over the final tone or conclusions of the work they get their names signed under (John Christy testimony before House Committe on Energy and Commerce IIRC).
    It's not even that jury is out on the topic - jury is back for ages and there is simply no unanimous verdict.
     
  14. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    Once again you are using dated media related articles to back up your claims. Your bias is not supported by scientific research or the facts.

    Provide me with evidence of Naomi Oreskes propaganda ? I have read that people who criticised the work retracted it almost immediately. Now here you go again lamenting the IPCC (wrongly I may add) for some sort of shortcomings that I have never read of seen.

    Unfortunately Von, it is you who is the propaganist, you are raging against the scientific establishment on this issue.

    If glaciers were expanding it would be reported, they are not, they are all shrinking. If Greenland and WAIS were growing and expanding it would be reported, they seemingly are not although the relationship between a warming world and ice is complex due to the way they lose and gain ice but overall they are shrinking.

    EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC FACT !!!! I am afarid.

    On the hockey stick I did not filter out any unwarranted critics but posted many articles on the subject that showed that fully independent hearings held up the hockey stick data as valid. Sorry Von but on this one you are incorrect. The balance of evidence on the hockey stick was that is was more right than wrong and the author did say this when he printed it.
     
  15. marin

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 705

    Location: Reykjavík - Iceland

    Shame then that there are several glaciers in New Zealand and in the Himalayas that have been shown to be either growing or not changed at all.

    Out of all the thousands of glaciers in the world probably less then 5% have actually been studied.

    Using glaciers as a method of proving global warming or climate change is utter nonsense as the size of a glacier is related to the amount of precipitation falling on a mountain range - more rain bigger glacier - less rain smaller glacier.

    As Von is saying the amount of money being spent on trying to solve this problem, which may not even exist is stupid, typical green issue such banning DDT as we were all going to die, as a result hundreds of thousands of people are now dead thanks to one misguided women writing a stupid book (Silent Spring).

    *** Corercted for spelling - long day yesterday - 16 odd hours at work.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  16. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,807

    Location: Bristol

    The arrogance shown here is incredible – thousands, literally thousands of tenured scientists believe observed glacier behaviour contributes to the body of evidence showing a warming world. However you feel able to dismiss this as utter nonsense in one sentence where you also manage to misspell "glacies", "climate", "percipation" and "montain"! Do you actually believe that the scientific community forgot to consider precipitation when assessing the significance of glacier observations? :confused:

    If you are right and they are wrong - then write it up and you'll get a PhD within a year!
     
  17. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    Absolutelt right clv101, some people on these forums seem to think that 90% of the world galciers shrinking is more than offset but the 10% that are static or growing slightly.

    It is incredible but there again science is not for everyone and thats why the media was invented i guess.
     
  18. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,113

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Yes it is, you just filter through it.

    I don't have to - others did it long time ago.

    That actually suggests the only place you read anything about Oreskes case is actually wikipedia.
    You are of course refering to note at wikipedia about Benny Peiser's revision of Oreskes research. Just as a short note to other people reading the thread - Oreskes research claimed 75% consensus of man made global warming among 928 documents treating about climate change in stored in ISI library. Benny Peiser followed Oreskes footsteps and found out:
    - Oreskes was wrong about number of abstracts in her search - it should have been 1117 not 928.
    - Among all 1117 abstracts only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorsed 'consensus view'
    - 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' of man made global warming as possible but mainly focus on impact assessments of global climate change.
    - 87 abstracts are paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change .
    - Around 34 abstracts strongly reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
    - 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

    Protagonists of Oreskes research launched immediately to defend her work but focused mainly on knocking down the 34 alledged abstracts opposing climate change view. Most were rejected by propagandists on basis of being industry biased or not peer reviewed. This doesn't of course change the fact the 75% consensus claimed by Oreskes was de facto 29% consensus at best with majority of all abstracts never even mentioning antropogenic basis for current climate change.
    Review of Oreskes work is quite important, because it is often used as the sole basis for flogging "consensus" to media. Al Gore claims in An Invonvenient Truth
    that out of those 928 papers zero disagree with the consensus position giving impression that there is no doubt whatsoever who's to blame for climate change and in a long run for him having to buy carbon offsets from the companies his majority shareholder in. That simply is not true.

    You have seen them. I posted enough info about dirt surrounding hockey graph earlier in this thread and you know there are many researches to prove it wrong. I posted where you can find quotes about scientists having very little input on final tone of IPCC research - John Christy testimony before House Committe on Energy and Commerce. Web doesn't end on realclimate.com, you could have just googled it, for pete's sake.
    The quote is: "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality"
    Full text here

    Well, you have to make up your mind - one day I'm denialist, now I'm propagandist to you. You keep switching it around, turning to your liking, tailoring to your views. You behave like religious fundamentalist that won't accept or read anything that doesn't suit your view. If you stumble and fall over spoon you still claim there is no spoon. And that's the biggest problem with you green propagandists - you treat opinions and theories as religion, as axioms, empirical scientific facts (to put in in your own words). And you know what - it works, I literally force myself to continue this dispute. I can certainly see why people would think life is too short to even bother opposing or discussing things with the likes of you. It's a lost cause, because just like any other fundamentalist movement, nothing will change your mind, your faith is blind and bulletproof. If I post literature you won't read it, for every quote against your theory you will find disapproving voice from realclimate camp, for every authority or scientific voice against your view you will pull another to **** all over their PhD. You will then go in a loop and come back to the same bull you posted n pages ago, stuff we already discussed and pointed errors in your line of thinking. Anything and everything will be stuck to your theory, regardless of my actual stance I will be called denylist, propagandist, whatever else you will find fit to serve your cause.

    The worst part of it, the part that pee me off the most though, is that deep inside I am green lobbyst, I am the kid that dragged his class to the forest to plant trees, I am the nut with Greenpeace albums in the loft cultivating organic veg in his garden and people like you throw me off by miles. The close minded green fascists with anti social docket that will wreck everything around them in the name of someone else's political crusade they were manouvered into. You waste everyone's time, massive resources and swing unbearable consumptionist movement into motion on the back of completely wrong agenda. Wake up. Smell the coffee.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jun 2007
  19. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,125

    You can be propagansist and a denialist, in fact the two go hand in hand so I do not have to make up my mind do I ?

    The hockey stick data I have read enough about to know that there have been more recent graphs of the last 1000 years using proxy data and they like Manns original graph.

    Here they are:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg

    Still looks convincing to me.
     
  20. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    Show me the data behind the hockey stick graph. No data, no confidence in the graph.....