Atlantis Online
October 18, 2019, 02:01:00 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 3379 times)
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 08, 2007, 06:39:11 pm »

Thanks buddy - but Proteus knows that Metatron isn't my wife.  So do a number of other people but I really don't care; that joke has run its course.  As for "Shep", that was a one time case of early wireless internet "unsecurity" that ended long ago (with a firewall) and never returned.  I guess if you don't have anything to offer to the discussion - it must still be fun to discuss it.   Roll Eyes

As for the rest of his angry drivel - I'll let Metatron handle it for herself.  She lives in her work and only comes out on holidays (if at all) so hopefully you (Proteus) will hold your breath till that time.  I'll be sure to tell her you were asking about her when I talk to her tomorrow, but I doubt you'll make it more than 4 minutes.  Keep trying though, I'm pulling for you.   Cool
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #166 on: April 08, 2007, 07:08:36 pm »

The process of GW and it's causes are quite complex and it is very obvious that no-one really knows what degree man's

contribution really has on it.   Climatic changes on a global scale OTOH have been proven to occur in varying cycles

and degrees since the planet formed and will most likely continue until the planet ends. 

I have an article that quotes a famous and reputable "Pro-Global Warming Scientist" that sums up my point quite nicely.  I make it clear up front that this guy is a friend of mine and therefore I am a bit biased to accept his viewpoint.  Having said that, he and I do disagree on a number of things, but isn't that what friends are for? 

Anyway, here's the section of the article that I wanted to share:

Various models running different scenarios predict sea-level rise as little as 18 centimeters (seven inches) or as much as 59 centimeters (23 inches). None of these models, however, completely includes the potentially greater contributions to such a rise from the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate modelers do not include effects on land-based ice in these regions because they cannot reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting.

Greenland's glaciers are melting and moving faster on average, but those shifts do not follow a simple, upward linear trend. For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea. Additionally, roughly 80 percent of its recent increase in water discharge occurred in just one year before stabilizing, according to Ian Howat of the University of Washington. As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: "The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea-level rise--but it matters." In fact, many variables come into play in Greenland's ice sheet. "You're trying to figure out what is going on with an immense, remote and complex beast, and it isn't easy," Alley adds.

And other important factors, such as the convection that forms thunderstorms, can only be approximated because they occur on too small a scale. "There is no way that the models are able to directly simulate these things," says climate modeler Stephen Zebiak of Columbia University. "So researchers just try to capture the net effect of the processes."

Despite these flaws, global models are increasingly credible: when fed the factors at play in climate over the past 100 years, they accurately match what has been observed to occur. Such precision gives scientists greater confidence in their ability to assign probabilities to the future. And all models agree that the world will warm at least 0.4 degree Celsius in the next 20 years.

I think I have included Rich's comments before, but  don't remember if they were here or the other forum.  He's a sharp guy who I have a lot of respect for - he's honest and his viewpoint is a very 'measured' one.  Note the section I increased the font on.  Read exactly what he said - not what you think/want him to say.  It's a great discussion point for later. 

Here's the link to the whole article:  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5



Theorizing who or who is not Merlin's wife will have very little impact on GW.  These are the tools and techniques of someone who has nothing better to do than strap on a suicide belt and blow himself up in the local university because he has  nothing better to offer.

It's an attempt to divert the discussion from anything but the questions asked.  No need to waste time thinking or researching when you can just disparage the person asking the question.  Hey - this sounds like what Jason keeps accusing me of with AL Gore (but has no proof).  You nailed it when you used the word "tactic".  I can't honestly say that none of the others (Allison, Brandon, Byron, Jason, etc.) would stoop to this (because one other has) but it is a rarity.  Leave it to him to go rushing headlong into a gunfight carrying a whiffelbat.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Proteus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 107



« Reply #167 on: April 08, 2007, 07:34:14 pm »

Thanks buddy - but Proteus knows that Metatron isn't my wife.  So do a number of other people but I really don't care; that joke has run its course.  As for "Shep", that was a one time case of early wireless internet "unsecurity" that ended long ago (with a firewall) and never returned.  I guess if you don't have anything to offer to the discussion - it must still be fun to discuss it.   Roll Eyes

As for the rest of his angry drivel - I'll let Metatron handle it for herself.  She lives in her work and only comes out on holidays (if at all) so hopefully you (Proteus) will hold your breath till that time.  I'll be sure to tell her you were asking about her when I talk to her tomorrow, but I doubt you'll make it more than 4 minutes.  Keep trying though, I'm pulling for you.   Cool

Why, is four minutes all you last with her? Smiley

As for "Shep," not quite, and don't bother trying to explain it. Shep was an alias of yourself that you created to give yourself back-up, one of a few you created at Atlantis Rising, as I recall.  You even created a few Absonite clones, as I remember, back when the two of you were bickering.  It was quite the joke there for a time, as I recall, and the fact that you do such a things undermines a great deal of what you say now.

But the point is, what you are saying now apparently has no credibility either, since you see the need to pull such pranks again.  Point is, if anything of what you say had some validity to this discussion, you wouldn't need to call in the wife, now would you? So much for the false bravado (on your part, of course).

Abs,

Quote
Proteus instead of using such a silly ploy just produce your data and research.  It seems likely that you have none and more likely

just an off the cuff opinion and a personal agenda of dislike for Merlin that has carried over for several years now.  It's a common

tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

First off, Abs, I don't dislike Merlin, I find him (and yourself) great fun.  The forum wouldn't be half as much fun if neither of you were here.

Second, research, mine is related to Atlantis - specifically Cuba, Antillia & Greek myth.  I have posted some of it at the old forum, some here, too, I assume you missed it, but, since you are only interested in Sarmast's exploits, I suspect you ignore everything else.

Third (and this is my favorite): tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

Abs, do you really think God wants you to be a bigot?  Just some advice, but I woiuld lay off that sort of stuff (if you want to go to heaven, that is). 

As it happens, I don't consider Merl to be superior to myself, I actually find it a bit comical how insecure he is, not to mention how seriously he takes himself. I don't intend anything personal, it is simply great fun to needle a person with those types of personality flaws.  Smiley
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 01:26:41 am by Proteus » Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #168 on: April 08, 2007, 08:35:57 pm »

Quote
I'm here to learn and educate

Well, you just put your finger on your biggest problem, Merlin.  First, in order to educate people, you have to know more about the subject you are lecturing them on than they do.  Your field of study is physics, it isn't climatology. In other words, this is not an area of your expertise, dear.

I actually remember the first time you and I debated on global warming, about eight months ago, at the other forum.  There, like here, you made the assertion that there were legions of scientists who didn't believe in it, but were too afraid to speak out about it (actually, a pretty transparent point since there is no proof).

I told you about the Science Magazine study, wherein, something like over 928 abstracts were studied.  In them, not one took issue with the idea that human beings were causing global warming.  So you produced a selection that you claimed did, apparently not thinking that any of us would bother reading any of them.

Turns out that not only didn't any of them take issue with GW, some of them actually were written by some of the main proponents of the Global Warming theory, guys like Michael Mann, who created the "Hockey Stick."  When I called you on that, you fled the discussion and we didn't see you again for months. 

You're not an expert at global warming, Merlin. You're certainly not in a position to lecture anyone here on it, and if you were honest about it, you would admit that the prognostications for what will happen again will be getting worse, not better.

Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #169 on: April 08, 2007, 08:41:53 pm »

Study: Climate change could bring new U.S. Dust Bowl
POSTED: 4:01 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights• Bottom line: "Better start planning" for parched Southwest, says researcher
• Study, published in journal Science, yields "scary results," scientist says
• Computer models show transition to drier conditions due to climate change



Drought results in cracked mud among the ruins of a Mormon pioneer town in Nevada, flooded 70 years ago when the Colorado River was dammed to create Lake Mead.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Changing climate will mean increasing drought in the southwestern United States, where water already is in short supply, according to a new study.

"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the states and federal government is that they'd better start planning for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

Seager is lead author of the study published online Thursday by the journal Science.

Researchers studied 19 computer models of the climate, using data dating back to 1860 and projecting into the future. The same models were used in preparing the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Watch how the latest panel report is different )

The consensus of the models was that climate in the southwestern United States and parts of northern Mexico began a transition to drier conditions late in the 20th century and is continuing the trend in this century, as climate change alters the movement of storms and moisture in the atmosphere.

The reduction in rainfall could reach levels of the 1930s Dust Bowl that ranged throughout the Midwestern United States, Seager said in a telephone interview.

That does not mean there would be dust storms like those of the 1930s, Seager said, because conditions at that time were complicated by poor agricultural practices. But he said the reduction in rainfall could be equivalent to those times when thousands of farmers abandoned their parched land and moved away in search of jobs. (Watch drought hit Australian farmers hard )

Currently, most water in the Southwest is used in agriculture, but the urban population of the region is growing and so the water needs of people are growing as well, he explained.

"So, in a case where there is a reduced water supply, there will have to be some reallocation between the users," Seager said. "The water available is already fully allocated."

He said he feels that adjustments can be made to deal with the change, perhaps by withdrawing some land from production and by conserving water in urban areas.

"But it's something that needs to be planned for," Seager said. "It's time to start thinking how to deal with that."

Jonathan T. Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, said the finding "agrees with what is already happening in the Southwest, and will be further complicated by the already declining spring snowpack due to warming."

"These are scary results, but scary in part because they are results of well thought-out scientific work by a large number of strong scientists," said Overpeck, who was not part of the research team. (Watch a worst-case scenario for coastal U.S. cities )

In other reports in this week's issue of Science:

• Researchers led by Alan Gange of the University of London reported that as a result of warming temperatures some species of mushrooms and toadstools in southern England have begun to fruit twice a year rather than once.

They found that some species that previously only fruited in October now also fruit in April. In addition, the length of the fruiting period has grown over time and in the last decade alone it has more than doubled, they found.

• Deep waters in the North Atlantic some 125,000 years ago were warmer than they are now and may have helped melt the Antarctic ice sheets, according to researchers led by Jean-Claude Duplessy of the Laboratory of Climate and the Environment of Institute Pierre Simon Laplace outside Paris.

Deep North Atlantic water flows south, then rises to the surface near Antarctica. The researchers said current warming climate trends indicate similar conditions to that period could occur in the next couple of centuries.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/dust.bowl.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #170 on: April 08, 2007, 08:51:39 pm »

Damage already done for some natural wonders
POSTED: 2:00 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• Report of regions at risk is undergoing governmental review
• World Wildlife Fund for Nature lists 10 regions suffering irreversible damage
• Some coral reefs can recover; melted glaciers cannot, says WWF scientist
• Attention needed to adapting to change, not just preventing it, scientist adds



Nyang-Chu Valley of the Himalayas outside Gyantse in Tibet in February already shows the melting of massive glaciers.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- While governments grapple with the politics of global warming, some of the world's greatest treasures already are being damaged and threatened with destruction.

Conservationists have drawn up priorities for action to salvage some of nature's wonders that are feeling the heat of climate change -- from the Himalayan glaciers to the Amazon rain forests and the unique ecosystem of the Mexican desert.

Many of the regions at risk were singled out in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an authoritative body of 2,500 scientists. The report is undergoing governmental review at a five-day conference in Brussels. (Full story)

On Thursday, diplomats and scientists were negotiating the text of a 21-page summary of the full 1,572-page scientific report. It projects specific consequences for each degree of rising global temperatures, which the IPCC agrees is largely caused by human activity.

On the sidelines of the conference, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature issued a list of 10 regions suffering irreversible damage from climate change. The group also listed where it has projects to limit further damage or help people adapt to new conditions.

"What we are talking about are the faces of the impacts of climate change," said Lara Hansen, WWF's chief scientist on climate issues.

The WWF is among the largest of many nongovernment organizations to take up the challenge of climate change.

The Nature Conservancy, based in Arlington, Virginia, is another. It has projects to protect coral reefs off Florida, in the coral triangle of Indonesia and in Papua New Guinea. It also is trying to preserve native alpine meadows in China and conserve vegetation in California's Sierra Nevada mountains.

Though climate change has been discussed for decades, Hansen said the effects were now becoming visible. "It's only in the past decade that we can go outside and see for ourselves what's happening," she told The Associated Press.

Some damage is reversible, Hansen said. Although melted glaciers cannot be restored, some coral reefs can recover.

But as natural landmarks deteriorate, she said more attention will have to be paid to adapting to change, not only trying to prevent it, and not enough experts are being trained to help people acclimatize.

"There's a massive void ahead of us in getting new people," she said.

Climate hotspots
The 10 areas listed by WWF are known climate hotspots, and only a small example of jewels of nature threatened by climate upheavals. The environmental group says it has teams on the ground in each place to monitor change and help people adapt. They include:


Corals, from the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to the MesoAmerican Reef off Belize. With just 1 C (1.8 F), corals lose their color and die. They also are damaged by the growing ferocity of tropical storms. (Watch what forces are putting pressure on the fragile corals )


The Chihuahua Desert straddling the U.S.-Mexican border. North America's largest desert, it encompasses the Rio Grande basin, vast grasslands and 3,500 unique plant species, including an array of cactus and yucca.


Caribbean turtles. WWF says six of seven species are endangered, as rising sea levels swamp nesting beaches and feeding grounds. Conservation efforts are focusing on the Hawksbill turtle.


The Valdivian rain forest in Chile and Argentina. The Alerce tree, which can live 3,000 years, is menaced by forest fires and declining rainfall. Melting glaciers means groundwater will become more scarce.


India's Sunderbans, home to the largest wild population of Bengal tigers and to 1 million people. The rising water of the Bay of Bengal and the increasing violence of rainstorms could inundate many coastal islands and destroy mangrove forests. (Watch how rising sea levels are taking land away from people in the Sunderbans )


The Yangtze River, which provides water, food and electricity to 450 million people. Glaciers in the Tibetan plateau that feed the upper Yangtze are shrinking, adding to water flows now but threatening shortages once the glaciers reach a critical point.


The Amazon, the channel for about one-fifth of all fresh water drained into the world's oceans. Projections say that within 50 years temperatures could rise by 2-3 C (3.6-5.4 F), turning between 30 percent to 60 percent of the rain forest into a type of dry savanna.


The Bering Sea, which supports wild salmon, whales, dolphins, walrus, sea lions and polar bears. Warmer winters are leading to the earlier break-up of spring ice and driving salmon stocks closer to the pole. Melting ice is diluting sea water and affecting nutrients for small organisms on which fish feed.


Himalayan glaciers, which regulate the water supply to hundreds of millions of people in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some glaciers are receding by 10 to 15 meters (33 to 49 feet) per year, causing floods now and threatening summer drought in the future.


East African coastal forests and the offshore ecosystem, until now an area of stable climate that supports a huge variety of plants, animals and marine life. Scientists predict the area will be vulnerable to more frequent and intense storms that will damage agriculture, shoreline mangroves and coral reefs.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/natural.treasures.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #171 on: April 08, 2007, 08:59:41 pm »

I'm going to print the article Merlin quoted here in it's entirety because I think it's key to show how the government is watering down the global warming info released in these reports and how the situation is actually much worse than is being presented by the media:

GLOBAL WARMING
Conservative Climate
Consensus document may understate the climate change problem
By David Biello




ICEBERG  from Greenland's Ilulissat Kangerlua glacier shows the influence of climate change

Paris--The signs of global climate change are clear: melting glaciers, earlier blooms and rising temperatures. In fact, 11 of the past 12 years rank among the hottest ever recorded. After some debate, the scientists and diplomats of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their long-anticipated summary report in February. The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming. By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.

More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries participated in the IPCC process, which will release three more reports this year. This first report examined only the physical science of climate change. Scientists drafted as lead authors prepared chapters on subjects ranging from a historical overview of climate change science to regional projections. Governments and other reviewers then submitted more than 30,000 comments. Finally, the lead authors and diplomats gathered in Paris to review the final document word by word, changing an emphasis here ("unequivocal" triumphed over "evident") or leaving out a controversial finding there.


For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

The document's conservatism also reflects the nature of climate change science. Various models running different scenarios predict sea-level rise as little as 18 centimeters (seven inches) or as much as 59 centimeters (23 inches). None of these models, however, completely includes the potentially greater contributions to such a rise from the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate modelers do not include effects on land-based ice in these regions because they cannot reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting.

Greenland's glaciers are melting and moving faster on average, but those shifts do not follow a simple, upward linear trend. For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea. Additionally, roughly 80 percent of its recent increase in water discharge occurred in just one year before stabilizing, according to Ian Howat of the University of Washington. As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: "The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea-level rise--but it matters." In fact, many variables come into play in Greenland's ice sheet. "You're trying to figure out what is going on with an immense, remote and complex beast, and it isn't easy," Alley adds.

And other important factors, such as the convection that forms thunderstorms, can only be approximated because they occur on too small a scale. "There is no way that the models are able to directly simulate these things," says climate modeler Stephen Zebiak of Columbia University. "So researchers just try to capture the net effect of the processes."

Despite these flaws, global models are increasingly credible: when fed the factors at play in climate over the past 100 years, they accurately match what has been observed to occur. Such precision gives scientists greater confidence in their ability to assign probabilities to the future. And all models agree that the world will warm at least 0.4 degree Celsius in the next 20 years.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5

This month the IPCC releases its second report, which focuses on global warming's impacts, ranging from intensifying droughts to heavier downpours and other extreme weather events. The third report--due out in May--will discuss options for mitigation, such as alternatives to fossil fuels. In the U.S., the commitment to such alternatives remains precarious--the budget for biofuel and hydrogen research has risen, but funding for other renewable energy sources has declined. And all that has been budgeted for such research represents less investment than the U.S. made in the 1970s.

"There is at least a perception among at least some students," Alley notes, "that the support for the search for solutions to energy and global warming is not yet reliable enough for those students to commit their future to it." Given the conservative IPCC estimates, the need for such solutions seems evident.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&pageNumber=2&catID=2

« Last Edit: April 08, 2007, 09:03:13 pm by Allison » Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #172 on: April 08, 2007, 09:08:54 pm »

Now, here is a section that Merlin didn't print, however, it is worth discussing:

For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

Once you rule out the sun as the major factor contributing to global warming and put the onus on human activity (something some of us have been trying to tell the global warming skeptics for month), the chief cause tends to be human activity.

Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #173 on: April 09, 2007, 01:09:59 am »

Quote
Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.  You should listen (read) more and make an attempt to understand something very important:  An issue this complex can not be taught to you by the press.  They don't understand it any better than you, so how can they teach you anything other than the emotional (hysterical) viewpoint?  That aspect is the only thing the press can share since the science is too boring to translate into a news story.  By default, the media will never have correct information available.  Contributors like Tom, Brooke, Zaphod, I Am and Merl are very good about stripping the problem down to its core, exposing the hype and making it easy to understand.  You should pay more attention to that.  My political science professor used to reiterate that,  "Hysteria and hype are clothing, so getting to the truth is like making love - you have to get her (him) naked first."

First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

First off, Metatron, please show exactly which responses of mine make me look like an "angry teenager." As for acting like a "fool," since you seem to be acquainted with Merlin, I will assume that comment would be directed towards anyone who dares to disagree with Merlin in your eyes and not take it personally. There is a lot of posturing on Merlin's part (and now yours, too), which I find a bit suspicious, not to mention unseemly. 

The data speaks for itself. The data does not need a lot of people such as yourself and Merlin claiming to have a secret grasp on the data all apparently for the petty goal of trying to win a debate. Neither of you are winning the debate, only showing the depths that you will go to try and win it. We can all read the same scientific journals, news stories, and analysis by people more qualified to judge the data than any of us (though, judging by the pomposity of both Merlin's and now, your own posts, I doubt that you would ever admit that), and make our own evaluations.  Simply because we don't buy someone else's rather biased view of the data does not mean that we don't have a grasp of the facts. To suggest that we are somehow supposed to buy into anyone's version of the facts (when no one but he is even saying them) not only happens to be silly, it's also a little crazy.

As Allison has said, neither of you are in an a position to lecure any of us on this subject. Merlin (and perhaps yours) mistake is in coming here thinking you are in a position to "teach" on every topic that you decide to speak on.  Even if you were a climatologist extolling the role that deuterium concentrations play (seemingly over CO2) in global warming, I would still have issues with it because you would be one of the only  (if not the only) climatologist saying it.

Quote
Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.  Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.  You should try looking at the data for once. 


Apparently, you can't read.  Merlin was the only one making jokes (in fact arguing earlier that he should have the right to), and, of course, telling me that he believed I didn't know what I was talking about.  I realize that you are naturally predisposed to be biased in favor of him, but at least be honest about it. I suggest you go back and read the exchanges if you still have questions about them. I would ask for a retraction of that statement, but from the stridency of your comments, I gather your own personal pride is more important to you than the truth.

I'm sure that you will again say that the rest of us don't know what we are talking about.  You are entitled to your opinions, and, of course, apparently, the attitude you have to affect to go along with it. No one who has actually followed the global warming debate could possibly be swayed by any of the arguments raised here against it, except, of course, if the only reason they were even here arguing was to give moral support.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 01:13:09 am by Jason » Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #174 on: April 09, 2007, 08:04:03 am »

Now, here is a section that Merlin didn't print, however, it is worth discussing:

Just so that you are aware Allison, I did post the link for all to read at their leisure.  I was not trying to "remove" anything.  I wanted to highlight some of the comments of my friend, while at the same time claryify something I said earlier to Jason and offer a little unbiased evidence to support it.


For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

Once you rule out the sun as the major factor contributing to global warming and put the onus on human activity (something some of us have been trying to tell the global warming skeptics for month), the chief cause tends to be human activity.

I'd hearken you back to the discussion we had prior (at the other forum) where we mutually agreed that "editing at the hands of politicians is a bad thing".  I don't care if it helps or hinders my viewpoint - Disinformation or lying by ommission is ALWAYS bad.  Bureaucrats - doing anything at all is bad enough, much less authoring a scientific report.  And they wonder why people accuse them of doing bad things...  Also remember - I'm not one of the supporters of the "SUN THEORY", although I still disagree that it has been conclusively studied in order to rule it out as a contributor (my stance all along).


Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.

I certainly don't see it that way, and I doubt many other do either.  The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promised.  For now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions".  I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.
Report Spam   Logged

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



« Reply #175 on: April 09, 2007, 07:35:23 pm »

Quote
I'd hearken you back to the discussion we had prior (at the other forum) where we mutually agreed that "editing at the hands of politicians is a bad thing".  I don't care if it helps or hinders my viewpoint - Disinformation or lying by ommission is ALWAYS bad.  Bureaucrats - doing anything at all is bad enough, much less authoring a scientific report.  And they wonder why people accuse them of doing bad things...
 

Well, there's another agreement! But something this should tell you is that the reason why they are doing the watering down is cause the situation is actually worse than the press says it is.  Very few people are denying that the world is warming up and that humans are responsible, and so, they are reduced to arguing to what degree it is a danger and muffling the news that things like the sun have been ruled out.

Quote
Also remember - I'm not one of the supporters of the "SUN THEORY", although I still disagree that it has been conclusively studied in order to rule it out as a contributor (my stance all along).

Yeah, I keep waiting for that report to come out saying that the sun IS responsible, when all the scientific evidence has ruled it out as the main cause.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on April 08, 2007, 09:08:54 pm
Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.

I certainly don't see it that way, and I doubt many other do either.  The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promised.  For now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions".  I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.


Here I was already under the impression that you had already seen all of that and that was the reason for your skepticsm.  You can already tell that tests to be included won't bode well for those who don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming. Look at the first two parts of the report as a precursor of what is to come. Have they ever cited any other credible possibilities or made mention of tests that concluded that anything other than man is responsible?  Nope.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #176 on: April 09, 2007, 09:20:56 pm »

Well, there's another agreement! But something this should tell you is that the reason why they are doing the watering down is cause the situation is actually worse than the press says it is.  Very few people are denying that the world is warming up and that humans are responsible, and so, they are reduced to arguing to what degree it is a danger and muffling the news that things like the sun have been ruled out.

They're watering it down because it doesn't support their agenda.  Science be damned with most of them.  Look at the ones who are doing the most to lessen the effect:  Argentina, Venezuela, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia.  Hmmmmm....  Think they have an agenda that doesn't mesh with Carbon reduction or pollution reduction in general?  Uh Huh - me too.

Yeah, I keep waiting for that report to come out saying that the sun IS responsible, when all the scientific evidence has ruled it out as the main cause.

Well, we don't disagree there - entirely.  Note that I said that I disagree that the sun's contributions have been conclusively investigated.  To the best of my knowledge, there have been only the most rudimentary (cursory) searches for links.  On the surface it has been eliminated, based almost entirely on sunspot and solar flare activity.  Since they are both comparatively low many scientists just moved along without looking any more deeply.  There are, however, many other aspects to look at.  We could discuss those if you are interested, but for now - I'd just like to have it on record that there is a decent chance that there is a contributory link still to be investigated, and it isn't a very mainstream one as far as I can tell.  In fact, what I think I said on the subject a month ago was, "From a different perspective, I am certain that the potential for celestial influence, as a whole, has not been fully investigated, and I can make that comment with complete certainty." 

Here I was already under the impression that you had already seen all of that and that was the reason for your skepticsm. 

Let's look at what I said again - just to keep things straight:

The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promisedFor now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions"I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.

Note that I am specifically dealing with is in the public domain in the first section (underlined).  I reiterate that in the bolded section which came next.  The next section (underlined) is a declaratory statement of that which I know is not coming.  The 1,600 page report is just that - A Report.  It does not include the scientific method section covering processes and procedures, logic and references, staus and standings or methodology; like any other peer-reviewed paper would.  The final bolded section is exactly what I have been saying all along - If there is a way to being me back to agreement with GW, it will be with the "nuts & bolts" - not with the fluff.  I want to see exactly how they arrived at the results they are verbalizing.

My apologies if I was unclear - it was not my attempt to confuse.

You can already tell that tests to be included won't bode well for those who don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try this one more time.  Call me silly, but I suppose that I'm a glutton for punishment.

I, and every other skeptical scientist [not affiliated with oil companies] are skeptical for a reason - NOT BECAUSE we "don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming", as you put it.  It is not a conscious decision to disbelieve that mankind is pure and innocent or that we choose to side with him over Mother Earth.  It's a little ridiculous to continue making that kind of statement after all of the discussion we've had on the subject.  You act like it's a plot against the majority just because we dislike or disagree with a particular personality.  It is because we have questions - questions that go unanswered.  Like it or not, telling me how much of a minority we are in has absolutely no effect on me.  Furthermore, asserting that you are correct because of a newspaper article has even less of an effect on me. 

Look at the first two parts of the report as a precursor of what is to come. Have they ever cited any other credible possibilities or made mention of tests that concluded that anything other than man is responsible?  Nope.

You have said much more than you know.  The forgone conclusion in the "Summary" was that mankind was at fault - do you really think they will offer up any further evidence that may call that into question?  Of course not.  Even though they pin the certainty at 90%, do you really think they'll ever name the item that may account for the 10% uncertainty?  Certainly not.  Much of the report is designed to stay away from any other possibilities, no matter how small they may be.  This report is unlike any other peer-reviewed journal in that way (and many others), and serves only to make it look even more conspicuous to those of us who keep wondering, "Where's the science?"

Once all 4 sections are in print, I'll come back and we can look at the lack of exculpatory data together.  Until that point, it's a little meaningless to continue being misquoted, misunderstood and derided simply because you dislike my position.  Who knew that being in the minority makes someone less - less everything?
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #177 on: May 04, 2007, 08:40:00 am »

Arctic melt worse than predictions
POSTED: 10:51 p.m. EDT, May 2, 2007



(CNN) -- Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate far quicker than predicted by climate change computer models and could disappear completely before the middle of the century, scientists have warned.

The study, published in the latest edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that the actual rate at which summer sea ice had shrunk per decade during the past 50 years was more than three times faster than an average of 18 of the most highly regarded climate simulations.

Retreating Arctic ice is considered a key indicator of the pace of global warming by environmentalists, and one that could have devastating knock-on repercussions for the wider climate, including warmer oceans and rising sea levels.

Declining ice levels also poses a threat to Arctic wildlife including polar bears, walruses and ringed seals.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which releases the third of three reports into the causes, consequences and mitigation of global warming in Thailand this week, the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by the latter part of the 21st century.

But the research, conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), demonstrates that the 18 models on which the IPCC has based its current recommendations could already be out of date -- and that the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC's worst case scenario.

"This suggests that current model projections may in fact provide a conservative estimate of future Arctic change, and that the summer Arctic sea ice may disappear considerably earlier than IPCC projections," said NSIDC's Julienne Stroeve who led the study.

Climate change models of Arctic sea ice cover in September, the month when ice is usually at its minimum, suggest an average loss of 2.5 percent of ice cover per decade from 1953 to 2003. The worst case simulated by an individual model predicted a decade-on-decade reduction of 5.4 percent.

Yet when scientists studied observable data for the same period, including shipping logs, aerial photos and satellite images, they discovered the actual figure for ice loss from 1953 until 2006 to be 7.8 percent.

Furthermore, the rate of deterioration seemed to be accelerating, topping nine percent per decade since 1979.

The discrepancy between computer modelling and reality is most likely due to the fact that simulations have failed to fully take into account the impact of increased levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, the researchers believe.

Models have typically attributed half of the loss of ice to greenhouse gases and half to natural variations in the climate cycle. But now, many believe the first factor could be playing a significantly greater role.

Earlier this month NSICD scientists reported that winter sea ice cover in the Arctic was just 14.7 million square kilometers (5.7m square miles) -- slightly better than the all-time low 14.5m square kilometers (5.6m square miles) in 2006 -- but well short of the 15.7m average for 1979-2000.

The Arctic is especially prone to global warming because of the dangers of the so-called "feedback loop" caused by melting ice.

While ice reflects around 80 percent of the sun's heat, having a cooling effect, blue sea water can absorb up to 95 percent of solar radiation, warming up the sea and accelerating the melting process further.

"While the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing," said co-author Marika Holland of NCAR.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #178 on: May 05, 2007, 03:05:05 pm »

Quote
I'm here to learn and educate

Well, you just put your finger on your biggest problem, Merlin.  First, in order to educate people, you have to know more about the subject you are lecturing them on than they do.

Alright - I have that part done without any contest; next point.

Your field of study is physics, it isn't climatology. In other words, this is not an area of your expertise, dear.

My expertise is theoretical and analytical processes.  I happen to be in the field of physics.

I actually remember the first time you and I debated on global warming, about eight months ago, at the other forum.  There, like here, you made the assertion that there were legions of scientists who didn't believe in it, but were too afraid to speak out about it (actually, a pretty transparent point since there is no proof).

You need to re-read.  That's not what I said, therefore it is not my assertion.  Try again, dear.

I told you about the Science Magazine study, wherein, something like over 928 abstracts were studied.  In them, not one took issue with the idea that human beings were causing global warming.  So you produced a selection that you claimed did, apparently not thinking that any of us would bother reading any of them.

I have explained this to you at least 5 times now.  In that you refuse to acknowledge what I said literally, and instead choose to believe what you THOUGHT I was trying to say, you are no better than Profeus.  No matter how many times you incorrectly dissect my intentions, you cannot cast doubt on my actions - they are written down, in the public domain, and have not changed since they were typed.  Why don't you go copy and paste the entire argument for the crowd to read?  That would certainly settle the dispute...  Clearly showing that I have done no such thing that you assert.

Turns out that not only didn't any of them take issue with GW, some of them actually were written by some of the main proponents of the Global Warming theory, guys like Michael Mann, who created the "Hockey Stick."  When I called you on that, you fled the discussion and we didn't see you again for months. 


As I said - You refuse to acknowledge what I ACTUALLY SAID, and continue maligning me based upon what you thought I was going to say.  Now you are too deep in it to just admit that you misunderstood.  I guess "My Bad" isn't in your vocabulary.  That's unfortunate; it's often a welcome addition when dealing with evolving science (as I am well aware).  I left the discussion for only one reason:  The mutal admiration society that had developed made it impossible to interject fact into the debate.  And being attacked for being correct gets really old - specifically when you wind up retreading the same nonsense - day in & day out.   You, and those like you, are a dime-a-dozen on any of the college campuses I visit.  Facts have no bearing upon your decision making process and you don't care if there is proof to support the assertions.  We refer to people like you as "Big Picture People".  "Don't bother Big Picture People with details, it only confuses their ability to believe what they choose to."  I realize that sounds like I'm being intentionally spiteful, but I'm really not - It simply "Is what it Is".

You're not an expert at global warming, Merlin. You're certainly not in a position to lecture anyone here on it, and if you were honest about it, you would admit that the prognostications for what will happen again will be getting worse, not better.

I am an expert on theoretical modelling, analytical statistical analysis, chemistry, physics, physical modelling, algorithmic computer simulation and history; each of which are fundamental to the discussion.  I also participate in 2 university forums on the subject and have contributed to the two prevailing theoretical models of hydrodynamic influence on meterological interruption within the atmosphere.  I dare say that, not only am I an expert in the field of research, I am also in a position to influence the research behind the final products.  You shouldn't make assumptions...

As for things getting worse - not better:  That's sort of off the topic.  Keep in mind that I have never disputed that any of GW is not happening.  Only that the understanding of why is unproven.  Attack my intentions however you wish, but I'll bet money that my record of environmentalism and planetary stewardship is unmatched by those of you who would paint me as a: SUV driving, toxic waste dumping neo-con.  Remember Allison, my words are in the public domain - and they have been consistently in support of environmentalism as a whole, with a focus on planetary stewardship. Remember the farting in a warm car analogy?  Grin



All-in-all, aren't you and your friends a little tired of doing nothing about what you hold so much hope in?  Seriously now, you spend time papering each other over with cuts & pastes from the internet, but I don't see you discussing the most important topic (if you believe that Albert is right).  What to do!  Why don't you and the others here join in on the creation of a new X-Prizesque competition for green (carbon-free) tech?  Form a team and go for it.  I'm a member of our university's team (who is supporting three other confirmed contestants) in an inter-scholastic competition for fuel-cell research, clean atomic power generation and transmission of power through low (or no) loss lines.  Lobby your politicians to adopt a "Manhattan Project mindset" in the search for fossil-fuel elimination.  Start a grass-roots-movement for it.  So far, it sounds like there's a lot of talk on the subject, but little action. 

I see myself as a catalyst for change.  Love me or hate me - I get results; whether I inspire people to action or guilt them into it.  I don't care how they come, as long as they do.  Maybe you should think of me as an advocate for 'green' laboring to mobilize the supporters to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!  It doesn't matter if I think man is to blame for global climate change anymore.  Enough people in the world do, but they think driving a Prius and hoping their government will do something about it is enough.  Theses same people chew through wood and paper products like a beaver, leave their (albeit flourescent) lights on 24 hours a day, water their lawn religiously, purchase tons of alkaline batteries (cause they are cheaper), fail to fix leaky faucets, consume bottled water by the gross ton, eat fast (or prepared) food, purchase (instead of rent) DVDs, burn CDs and DVDs, use aerosols, and recycle only what (and when it) is convenient.

You see, Allison, I'm not just railing against the misunderstanding of GCC's cause - I'm trying to get people to really think globally and act locally.  I want people to think that the problem is manageable and that they can effect it with their individual actions.  You do it your way, by creating this massive monster that most people are intimidated by, and the population polarizes.  I'd like to bring the discussion back to the "fart in a warm car".  I would have the public ignore the massive monster and focus on its minions and foot-soldiers, pollution, toxicity, consumption and deforestation.  All easily managable; individually, as long as the spector of doom isn't looming over them while they are separating their papers from their plastics at the recycle bin.  History tells us that mankind reacts predictively when exposed to psychological stresses.  They, go overboard trying to change it, ignore it, or adapt slowly with it and follow the changes.  This last one is called evolution and requires that most of the life dies out with the changes (I vote against this method on purely selfish grounds).  Predominently, history tells us that we react (collectively) in the worst way - We ignore it until it's too late, and evolution saves a wee bit of us to proliferate again later. 

Manage our expectations, measure our task and monitor our progress - that is my motto for every trial and simulation I have the pleasure of adminstering.  I have a proven record of success because of it.  Ever been asked, "How do you eat an elephant?" 

One bite at a time.... 
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #179 on: May 05, 2007, 03:13:45 pm »

As it happens, I don't consider Merl to be superior to myself, I actually find it a bit comical how insecure he is, not to mention how seriously he takes himself. I don't intend anything personal, it is simply great fun to needle a person with those types of personality flaws.  Smiley

That is a perfect description of yourself Profeus; insecure with a flawed personality - I couldn't have said it better myself.  Clearly you were meaning to apply that in this way, since you are the person who was talking to yourself in a forum thread...  The whole idea of me being superior to you are your words, not mine and it definitely lends itself to explaining your insecurity issues.  That's alright though, young elf, the rest of your nonsensical fairy tale spoke volumes of your willingness to "spin a yarn" as well.  Don't take it personally though, sometimes it's just great fun to point out the obvious bits to demoralize someone who is morally bankrupt and intellectually stunted. 

Take it away proteus -->  Let the swearing and obscenity begin! 
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 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