Atlantis Online
October 16, 2019, 09:34:04 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: FARMING FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156622&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156618&contentPK=18789712&folderPk=87030
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 3379 times)
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2007, 02:28:18 am »

VANISHING ICE

Konrad Steffen arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the 2002 summer fieldwork season and immediately observed that something significant was happening in the Arctic. Pools of water already spotted the ice surface, and melting was occurring where it never had before. “That year the melt was so early and so intense — it really jumped out at me. I’d never seen the seasonal melt occur that high on the ice sheet before, and it had never started so early in the spring,” said Steffen, principal scientist and interim director at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado.

 
By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. “I was really surprised by the change,” Serreze said. “By the end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several centuries.”

Seasonal melt areas on the Greenland Ice Sheet are generally located along the edges of the ice sheet at its lowest points. In 2002, however, the melt started unusually early and progressed higher up the ice sheet than at any time in the past 24 years. Surface melting extended up to 6,560 feet (2,000 meters) in elevation in the northeast portion of the island, where temperatures normally are too cold for melting to occur. In addition, the total melt area covered 265,000 square miles (686,350 square kilometers), representing a 16 percent increase above the maximum melt area measured in the past 24 years.

Serreze’s team coincidentally discovered that in September 2002, Arctic sea ice extent was approximately 400,000 square miles (1.04 million square kilometers) less than the long-term average of 2.4 million square miles (6.2 million square kilometers), and that much of the remaining sea ice was unusually thin and spread out.

To determine whether their independent findings were related, the research teams measured the sea ice extent and ice sheet melt using passive microwave data from satellites, including data from the NIMBUS-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) (1978-1987) and its successor, the DMSP Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) (1987-present).


 
A researcher observes the edge of the Greenland Ice Sheet in 2001. (Image courtesy of Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado at Boulder)
Passive microwave sensors provide data that are processed into brightness temperatures. Brightness temperatures are both a measure of the physical temperature within the snow and a gauge of emissivity, or the ability of water or ice/snow to emit radiation at the microwave frequencies (frequencies in the centimeter wavelength range). Dry snow emits much less radiation than wet snow, which behaves almost like a perfect emitter (blackbody), giving off a wide range of frequencies of radiation. Therefore, dry snow and ice have lower brightness temperatures than wet snow surfaces.

The brightness temperature of seawater (ice-free ocean) is much lower than that of ice/snow or melting ice/snow. By calculating daily brightness temperatures (from the daily pass of the satellite over the Arctic), scientists can determine the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and the extent of melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Because the microwave instrument can “see through” clouds and darkness, ice extent can be monitored year-round, even during storms and winter darkness.

To validate, or confirm, their calculations of ice extent, the sea ice team used images from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The Greenland team validated its findings with climatological data from 20 automatic weather stations distributed over the entire ice sheet. The passive microwave data and the MODIS images are archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of NASA’s Distributed Active Archive Centers.

The Greenland team has access to year-round passive microwave data from the last 24 years for their study area, a significant observation period. During that period, Steffen documented an overall trend of increasing melt area in Greenland, taking into account years with a great deal of melt, like 2002, and years with less-than-average melt, like 1992 when the Mt. Pinatubo eruption sent aerosols into the atmosphere, which reflected solar radiation and resulted in cooler temperatures and less melt.

Steffen and Serreze believe the accelerated melt in 2002 may be linked to shifts in Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns. Air circulation is driven by pressure differences, and in 2002 unusual stationary low-pressure areas occurred in the Arctic. A relatively stationary low-pressure cyclone over the Atlantic Ocean northeast of Greenland moved air from the North Atlantic onto the ice sheet, which is rare. While it is normal for cyclones to form over the North Atlantic, they usually are quite dynamic and are not “locked” in one place, as occurred during the summer of 2002.
 
   Emissivity and Brightness Temperatures
by Jason Wolfe

Remote-sensing satellites measure the amount of radiance reflected or emitted by the Earth’s surface. Scientists who study the temperature of objects at the Earth’s surface need an additional factor called emissivity to accurately calculate temperature. Emissivity represents the effectiveness of different objects to radiate thermal energy and is a ratio of an object’s radiant energy to that of a blackbody at the same temperature. A blackbody is an ideal object that absorbs all incoming energy without reflecting back any energy.

Given the emissivity of an object, microwave radiances are converted to brightness temperatures, which are a measure of the intensity of thermal radiation emitted by an object. 
The low sea ice levels in 2002 seem to be part of a general downward trend in Arctic sea ice over the past 24 years, which appears to be driven by a combination of higher temperatures and altered wind fields that tend to break up the ice cover. A key feature of 2002 was the persistent stormy conditions in summer, with low sea level pressure over the central Arctic Ocean from June through August. Temperatures were also unusually high from January through August. “I’ve never seen this situation occur before,” said Serreze.

The unusual late winter warmth and the increased ice melt seen in the Arctic in recent years appear to be signs of a positive trend in the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO, which is very similar the North Atlantic Oscillation, is a large-scale atmospheric circulation phenomenon — a cyclic shifting of atmospheric mass between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. When the AO is in a positive state, as has generally been the case for the last two decades, atmospheric pressures are low over the Arctic Ocean, winds are usually stronger than normal, and the wind transports warm air into the Arctic. Serreze explained, “Researchers at the University of Washington have shown that variations in atmospheric circulation seem to play a strong role in creating regional differences in sea ice thickness that precondition the ice for extensive summer melt and breakup. However, the stormy conditions we saw in summer 2002 don’t really fit the AO framework, so we’re still not sure why the summer was so stormy.”

Steffen added, “It’s not by chance that we had the minimum sea ice distribution and the maximum melt that year; having so little sea ice affected the local climate around Greenland quite substantially. Because the sun wasn’t reflecting off the sea ice, the air close to the ocean surface was warmed, and certainly the ocean water was much warmer. This has a very strong effect on cyclones.”

But were the 2002 ice minimums an indication of continual warming in the Arctic, or was 2002 just another peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle?

Warming trends have been observed over Greenland in the past, but the warming has progressed at a much slower rate. In the early 1930s, average temperatures over Greenland were as warm as those observed recently, but it took about 30 years of gradual warming to reach those levels. That warming trend could have been part of a natural, long-term cycle in the Arctic. But today, the Arctic is warming much faster, reaching current warm temperatures in less than a decade. And the warming is starting earlier in the year, with the greatest warming generally occurring in the spring and late winter.

If the warming is part of a continuing trend, higher Arctic temperatures and less ice may have long-term effects on both sea level and navigable waters in the Arctic. Steffen, Serreze, and colleagues estimate that a warmer climate over Greenland might lead to an increase in the rate of sea-level rise. Increased melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet sends more meltwater into the surrounding ocean. It also increases the rate of ice flow off Greenland, because the meltwater penetrates the ice sheet and forms a thin film between the ice and bedrock, which causes the glaciers to slide off the continent faster.


 

In September 2002, satellite data showed that sea ice extent was 4 percent lower than any previous September since satellite monitoring began in 1978. For the period between 1987 and 2001, lower-than-average concentrations of ice floes appear in blue, and higher-than-average concentrations appear in yellow. The lavender line indicates the median ice extent for 1987 through 2001. (Image courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

 
The Greenland Ice Sheet melt area increased on average by 16 percent from 1979 to 2002. The minimum melt extent was observed after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1992. (Images courtesy of Konrad Steffen and Russell Huff, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder)


A trend in lower concentrations of Arctic sea ice may mean that historically unnavigable areas of the Arctic may open, such as the famed Northwest Passage. If current warming continues and results in lower ice concentrations, the Northwest Passage could become accessible to ice-strengthened ships, opening the area not just as a trade route, but also as a means to economically exploit the far north. This could have profound economic implications in addition to sociological implications for Arctic peoples such as the Inuit, who depend on the ice cover for travel and hunting.

Some researchers, however, believe that recent Arctic warming is only a recurring peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle. A group of Alaskan researchers recently published their assessment of Russian long-term observations of air temperature from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from Arctic seas. They found a great deal of variability in Arctic temperatures, with cyclic fluctuations on a timescale of 60 to 80 years. A climate cycle of this length might mean that the Arctic will cool again soon, rather than continue warming.

Given these findings and the world’s interest in global climate change, long-term observations are essential to understanding Arctic climate change. “Climatologists generally need a 30-year mean (or average) to be able to talk about trends in climate variability. With the availability of data from satellites that have been in orbit for 24 years, scientists now have close to that 30-year standard, which is unique,” said Steffen.

“The real question is, is this recent trend unusual?” said Serreze. Both teams will rely on the orbiting “eyes” of satellites to observe Arctic ice conditions over the next few years as they attempt to determine whether these changes are part of a long-term climate cycle or whether the Arctic is experiencing an ongoing warming trend.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abdalati, W. and K. Steffen. 2001. Greenland Ice Sheet melt extent: 1979-1999, Journal of Geophysical Research. 106:33,983 - 33,989.

Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, and A.V. Yulin. 2002. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters. 29(10):1029.

Serreze, M.C., J.A. Maslanik, T.A. Scambos, F. Fetterer, J. Stroeve, K. Knowles, C. Fowler, S. Drobot, R.G. Barry, and T.M. Haran. 2002. A record minimum Arctic sea ice extent and area in 2002. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(3):1110.

This article contributed from Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) Alliance: Supporting Earth Observing Science 2003
For a copy, e-mail nasadaacs@nsidc.org.

 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/
Report Spam   Logged
Byron
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3808



« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2007, 01:24:05 am »

This is quite obviously, the watered down version:

Scientists: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming
POSTED: 12:55 a.m. EST, February 3, 2007
Story Highlights
• Scientists release a 21-page report strongly linking humans to climate change
• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal
• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100
• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century


 
 
(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon deliver the grim news on global warming javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/sots.france.global.warming.report.aptn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/sots.france.global.warming.report.aptn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03')Wink

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the climate. (Watch what happens to our planet when manmade emissions get trapped in the atmosphere javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/obrien.climate.warming.facts.cnn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/obrien.climate.warming.facts.cnn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03')Wink

The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.

The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/02/01/lawrence.atlantis.california.cnn','2007/02/15');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/02/01/lawrence.atlantis.california.cnn','2007/02/15');','2007/02/03')Wink

"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated.

The group will meet again in April to discuss the socioeconomic impact of climate change.

Defining 'likely'
The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.
The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web site.

The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers, scientists and other climate change experts.
Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.

The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."

The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.

Renewed concern in U.S.
Friday's report comes amid renewed debate in the United States. (Full story)
In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for the use of more environmentally friendly technologies to "confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

It was the first time he has discussed the issue in a State of the Union address.
The White House has said Bush's proposals would stop the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles within 10 years.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate held hearings on climate change this week. (Full story)

CNN's Peggy Mihelich and David E. Williams contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html

Report Spam   Logged

Win One for the Lion



Healthcare is a Right, Not a Privilige
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2007, 03:24:08 pm »

I feel out of place here.  Will I be the only voice of reason or should I hype up the emotion just a tad so that I don't feel so disjointed?  I'm kidding - I just thought it would be fun to tweak a pair of you just for "old time's sake".   Kiss

    I'm unmoved by the AR4 summary to the IPCC's latest attempt!  

The summary and associated report should have come with the following title page so that scientists who went to read it wouldn't be as let down as I was:

  ** - Anecdotal Evidence Alert! - ** 
  ** - All Coincidences are Converted to Evidence! - ** 
  ** - No Data to be found HERE! - ** 
  ** - Our Computer Models Still Don't Work! - ** 
  ** - We Haven't Made a Single Correct Prediction Yet! - ** 

I have noticed that everyone who has posted in this thread has gone out of their way to portray the situation as dire as possible.  By using graphics from movies and horror stories from other sources, all you do is ellicit an emotional response - not a logical or "ACTUAL" one.  People get scared - but they don't actually do anything.  Furthermore, I notice how so many of you are heaping up the conspiracy to conceal evidence (for lack of a less meaningful term), yet you fail to cover the other side of the story.  What about the mainstream movement to conceal any evidence to the contrary of GCC, GW or the man-made nature of the two?  I have yet to see any of the articles or stories portraying the IPCC as corrupt as the administrations of the countries that aren't convinced?  Hasn't anyone noticed that, ever since the debacle of the AR2 report - where scientists fled from it en mass, there has been no scientific vetting of the documents (AR3 & AR4).  Why are there no discussions as to why, only scientists who agree to agree with the findings of the report (up front & before anything is learned) are invited to participate?  Oh well - I could go on at length with reasons to portray the IPCC as nefariously as you all do the skeptics...  Maybe we should just discuss the DATA and not the charcters involved in the conspiracies on both sides.

That will be difficult since it still isn't available, the computer models still don't work, and the predictions have all been incorrect.  It's like watching any other scientific theory in its infancy, struggling to survive the weight of its own initial promises.  Maybe we should give them some time to get ANYTHING correct before we start rushing headlong to embrace it with open arms.   Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Chronos
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1627



« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2007, 03:30:47 pm »

Welcome, Merlin, and cheer up, at least you'll have no log-in problems here.  Welcome aboard.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2007, 07:17:54 pm »

Welcome, Merlin, and cheer up, at least you'll have no log-in problems here.  Welcome aboard.
Thanks for the warm welcome friend,  I appreciate it.    Cheesy   



BTW - I'm not grumpy, I was just having a little fun whilst pointing out an obvious oversight on behalf of the GW crowd.  I myself am undecided, so I like to hold down the middle as well as I can on that issue.

I do admit to having my butt CHAPPED a little bit about losing my original log in over at Atlantis Rising.  More so that no one seems to give a darn.  Silly me for hoping for a bit of professionalism.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2007, 10:07:35 am »

Quote
Dangers of Disinformation

President George W. Bush's new international anti-malaria campaign has been greeted with enthusiasm by its victims, but with pseudoscience by commentators.

That is not unusual: Fallacies infect every debate about the environment and affect policy, taxpayers' money and victims' lives.

Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, look at the evidence, modify the hypotheses and probe further. Then activists, news media and politics take over.

Look at climate change: The public hears again and again that there is scientific consensus, that it's happening now and that we are on the brink of disaster

This is nonsense. But if we scientists don't yell "Danger!" no one listens. For years, the public has been fed a lusty diet of climate doom and gloom, cooked and served by alarmists who use the language of science to push an agenda. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the "climate consensus" or be branded a callous skeptic.

I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage. Every discipline has many critical, unanswered questions and many dangerous distortions.

I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.

Recently, the Associated Press quoted an entomologist claiming an unprecedented outbreak of malaria in Karatina, Kenya, at 1,868 meters. The heart rending article began, "The soft cries of children broke the morning stillness as parents brought them in to the hillside hospital one by one...drained by a disease once unknown in the high country of Kenya."

But there's nothing new about malaria in Karatina. Between World War I and the 1950s, there were 10 disastrous epidemics in the region, and they extended much higher.

We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.

In November, I was in Nairobi along with thousands of people attending the UN's climate change conference.

I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place "above the mosquito line" but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.

Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.

http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/bulletins.php?bulletin_id=1171289794


Paul Reiter has no axe to grind when it comes to climate change.  Gore does ....  Who is telling the truth? 


Report Spam   Logged

Andy
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2007, 01:25:50 pm »

Essan -

This is exactly what I have been pointing out for the past year at the "other forums" and the past 10 years with students.  Not necessarily always about climate change, but the "evolution" of Truth due to those who have an agenda.

I know, I know - it's easy to point out that people with an agenda have been around forever, trying to change the minds of those who would be a party to it, but things are different in the past 30 years in my opinion.  It's no longer just "an agenda" that is at play here...  It has become that "the agenda" is to make headlines.  The author's example is a wonderful one, but its subject matter could just have easily been Global Climate Change (GCC), Global Warming (GW), Sectarian violence in the Middle East, Dark Matter, Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, or the Economy.  It really matters nought to the press.  Once they seize on an issue, the mainstream is going to flow in the direction that media directs.

Have you ever noticed that the media does not argue with itself?  Think about it for a minute...  (I'll wait)...  Alright, when was the last time that the media came out with competing positions on an issue?  It doesn't happen anymore.  Each of them "build upon" the stories of their peers, forever worsening the situation until even the most unimportant issue becomes dire - or - fades to black.  We've all seen issues simply disappear, but have we taken the time to question why?  It's because someone, somewhere (in the media) realized that the story was wrong.  No hoopla, no apologies - they just simply bury it.  It's funny really - everyone loves to talk about the "BIG OIL" monopoly, and the Telecom Monopoly, The "Old Boys Club" on Wall Street, but how many talk about the handful of "mini-monopolies" that make up the News agencies?  How can papers in LA, NY, Chicago and Dallas compete with one another to "make sure the story is correct" when they are all paid by the same people?  There  must be an unwritten rule somewhere that won't allow them to report stories in opposition to stories reported by their own (other) entities.  I know that the party line states that "nothing like this will happen", but let's be realistic - when was the last time Big Media Outlets went head-to-head on a story?  Even Fox News does this with CNN...  That's like cats sleeping with dogs.  I miss the "real", not the "fake" rivalry.

So that brings us back to the discussion at hand.  The author of the article makes a similar point to one that I made awhile back, "...no consensus among scientists", only a consensus amongst pro-man-made-GW scientists.  Most scientists with an opposing view are just biding their time protecting their fellowships, grants, and funding.  Once we "come off the bench" we're going to take a whoopin where it hurts most, in the wallet, and that beating is going to come first from the media.  The rest of their lapdogs will follow to kick us while we're down.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 01:29:54 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2007, 09:45:12 pm »

Good to see you over here, Merlin.

Quote
Hasn't anyone noticed that, ever since the debacle of the AR2 report - where scientists fled from it en mass, there has been no scientific vetting of the documents (AR3 & AR4).  Why are there no discussions as to why, only scientists who agree to agree with the findings of the report (up front & before anything is learned) are invited to participate?  Oh well - I could go on at length with reasons to portray the IPCC as nefariously as you all do the skeptics...  Maybe we should just discuss the DATA and not the charcters involved in the conspiracies on both sides.

The IPCC may well be a corrupt organization, any organization that allows government bureaucrats a hand in editing scientific work (and allows to do it as a matter of routine) has a lot to answer for.

However, the IPCC's failings have nothing to do with global warming. Granted, there never is an absolute scientific consensus, but the reason why scientists have begun to distance themselves from the reports they issue is because the information simply doesn't go far enough.  The last report, for instance, is a watered down version of the effects of global warming on the planet, it isn't the truth.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2007, 09:58:44 pm »

Quote
Paul Reiter has no axe to grind when it comes to climate change.  Gore does ....  Who is telling the truth? 


Essan, I actually don't remember the mosquitoes in Narobi playing all that big of a role in An Inconvenient Truth, in fact, I have seen the movie twice and don't remember them at all in the movie.

Some of the science is a little off, in other parts, there was not, as yet, any firm scientific consensus but theory at the time pointed to global warming being responsible - the idea that global warming would bring on stronger storms, for instance. There is a case for that, but it has yet to be proven conclusively.

Overall, the danger of global warming is very real, and if the best the global warming skeptics can do is poke some holes in things here and there, well, fine, we've seen that story before.  They did the same thing when it comes to evolution and it hasn't gotten them far with most sensible people.

Finally, does Gore have an agenda?  You bet, just like the fossil fuel companies have an agenda of their own by trying to stop what he would ideally like to keep in place because it would cut into profits.  At worst, Gore's agenda (even if global warming didn't exist) would lower our pollution levels on the planet.  At best, it will stop the planet from going down a slide that it most likely wouldn't recover from for a long, long time.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2007, 10:00:16 pm »

Cool graphics, by the way, people.
Report Spam   Logged
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2007, 10:21:31 am »


Overall, the danger of global warming is very real, and if the best the global warming skeptics can do is poke some holes in things here and there, well, fine, we've seen that story before. 

Well personally I don't dispute global warming.  I dispute misinformation (on all sides) and I dispute the emphasis on carbon emissions to the exclusion of other human activities.

Did you know that 10% of all carbon emissions come from Indonesia.  Not from cars.  Not from power stations.  But from deforestation.

I've not actually seen An Inconvenient Truth.  How much time was spent discussing the destruction of rain forests and their huge impact not just on global carbon emissions but on regional climate as well? 

btw I don't drive, don't fly and use as little electricity as I can - I support all efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions.   But I don;t believe everything I read about AGW.
Report Spam   Logged

Andy
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2007, 11:14:27 am »

Good to see you over here, Merlin.

Thanks - good to be here.

Quote
The IPCC may well be a corrupt organization, any organization that allows government bureaucrats a hand in editing scientific work (and allows to do it as a matter of routine) has a lot to answer for.

That's never a good thing.  The bureaucrats don't allow us scientists to edit their laws, so why do we let them alter our research?

Quote
However, the IPCC's failings have nothing to do with global warming. Granted, there never is an absolute scientific consensus, but the reason why scientists have begun to distance themselves from the reports they issue is because the information simply doesn't go far enough.  The last report, for instance, is a watered down version of the effects of global warming on the planet, it isn't the truth.

This, we have to disagree upon.  I am not the only physicist who has questioned the legitimacy of the assumptions made in the science in order to get the theories to coalesce.  I am not the only mathematician who has shaken his head in disgust when the references for the citations are reviewed and the math turns out to be entirely contrived.  I am also, nowhere nearly the only theorist who is amazed that none of their computer models (based upon their theories) work without incremental perturbations ("fudge factors") being installed in order to arrive at a pre-determined result.  In fact, of the two universities I spend most of my time at, all of the math and science departments are overwhelmingly populated with skeptics.  Most of which are so because none of the predictions are correct. 

I realize that theory is no less a viable theory in the face of no observational evidence; that much is certain.  However, I do know for a fact that when, observation serves to disprove the predictions of a theory - time after time - there is something wrong. One thing that may be wrong is the theory, another might be the way we observe, but certainly we cannot blame the test in this case...  The test is our existence and we couldn't screw that test up - it's pure, unadulterated observation.

Something that may produce enough success to keep scientists moving forward, yet not enough to prove a theory can often times mean that you are close to being correct.  Lord knows, I've been there - done that, too many times to count.  Unfortunately, there is another method for creating succesively close (but otherwise inaccurate) results.  That is to create a "mechanical theory" for something that is "fluid", and use a lot of "fudge" and assumptions to "fine tune" it.    IMHO, Gertrude Hawk and Mrs. Fields have nothing on the IPCC, there's enough fudge in the previous reports to give cavities to all of the teeth in the entire third-world.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am »

Same old Merlin - a stuck record.

The media doesn't offer competing sides of a story?  Gee, maybe that's because there aren't two sides to the truth.  The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

As for their not being as scientific consensus concerning global warming, more baloney. Take a poll, did we? 

Whereas you claim that global warming evidence is "anecdotal," your evidence to the contrary happens to be simply opinion layered atop more opinion. Yep, that sure warants equal time! 

Allison
Report Spam   Logged
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2007, 08:04:31 am »

Carbon emissions get more time than they deserve Wink 

It's a bit like blaming someone's poor health on too much smoking, whilst the facts that they eat fast food, drink too much, sit around watching TV all day and never exercise are all ignored .....

Global Warming/climate change has become a one issue debate.  It ain't as simple as that.  Why do the AGWers ignore other factors?  Maybe because they find the real truth  too inconvenient? 
Report Spam   Logged

Andy
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm »

Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy