Global warming?

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12347162#post12347162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Sounds more like optimist vs. pessimist, or the old is the glass half full or half empty

It's funny how certain people like to label others who have a real concern for the environment/climate change. And how they dont like to talk about possible solutions to be cleaner/greener,as that would be admitting there is a problem.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12355631#post12355631 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
So what about the photograph from 3 years ago that show the area of colapse to be open sea? Photoshop? Who you going to believe, those credible scientists or your lying eyes?

I think Bean said it best:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12354825#post12354825 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
The picture series shows 3 years of recession of the ice sheet, not merely 3 years of existence. It took about 5 minutes of searching to find an apparently older picture of the sheet on google earth, a journal article from 1993 predicting the imminent collapse of the ice sheet, an article from 1996 showing measured declines on the Wilkins sheet along with two nearby that were even worse off, plus maps of the area since the 1970s.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12355631#post12355631 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
What I don't understand about you Bill, and greenbean too, is that according to your avatars, your both scientists. The duty of a scientist is to try to break down theories, not build defenses around them.

Mike

A couple of things to note. We're both Marine Scientists, as such we have hands on familiarity with field work, and a close association with physical oceanographers and climatologists. I don't know about greenbean's university, but I know at mine the climatologist folk are part of the marine science department. Hence we call our selves the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. This means we get to talk face to face to the people doing the climate research.

As for building defenses, tearing apart flawed papers such as the one you dug up on Wilkens is not defending anything, but indeed trying to break down theories. In some cases like that particular paper it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel

 

[greenbean36191]

Okay lets go at it like this: the paper I sited seemed pretty clear and straight forward. So, what is it about the report that the wilkins ice sheet disintregration was due to global warming that make you accept the report. Why do you assume that it is correct, but immediately find fault with the counter opinion?

I never said I accept that the loss was caused by warming. I've only read 3 papers on the subject since you posted, so I don't know enough about it to determine if warming is the most likely cause. I immediately discount the counter opinion presented in the link though because it uses poor logic based on assumptions that are almost definitely false. I have a hard time even following his argument.

And seriously, do you think that in an area that hits 70 degrees below zero fractions of a degree make any difference? Hey, here's an experiment, put an ice cube in your freezer at about 0 degrees f. Then turn up the temp to 0.5 degrees f. Tell me how much ice disapears.

That same area also hits a few degrees above 0. 0 and 0.5C (32F and 33F) makes a big difference. Here's an experiment for you to do. Take an icecube and put it outside in full midday sun when the temp is 33. See how long it lasts. You can even do it when the air temp is around 30 and the ice will melt from the radiant heat of the sun. Now imagine if the sun didn't set for 3 months.

I give up about the Mann graph. You obviously have an orthodoxy about this sacred graph. There is no way, even with clear compelling evidence that you will change your mind.

Please, don't give up. Explain to me what is wrong about the graph that changes the conclusion. While you're at it do the same for the other dozen papers that have used entirely different methods with different datasets and still reached the same conclusion. If the shape of the graph is an artifact of a flawed method why does using other methods not change the shape when representative datasets are used?

Thirty years ago during the 70's the science was warning of the coming ice ander now its global warming, my oppinion is they just need some sensacional hypothesis to keep up funding.

From 1965-1979 there were 44 peer reviewed studies that warned of warming and 7 that warned of cooling. It was never widely believed within the scientific community that there was an imminent threat of cooling. Again, sensationalism or not, the ability of scientists to secure funding and their salaries are hardly affected. The system is designed that way intentionally.

So what about the photograph from 3 years ago that show the area of colapse to be open sea? Photoshop? Who you going to believe, those credible scientists or your lying eyes?

The only photo that shows a collapse of the ice sheet is the most recent. The others show various degrees of seasonal ice. Ice sheets are not seasonal ice. The line labeled as pack ice in the photos is the edge of ice sheet.

What I don't understand about you Bill, and greenbean too, is that according to your avatars, your both scientists. The duty of a scientist is to try to break down theories, not build defenses around them.

Like Bill said, it has nothing to do with defending anything. Refutations still have to follow the rules of logic and statistics- something that very few contrarian arguments do. I have no problem accepting valid refutations such as MM's criticism of Mann's graph, however I also don't read more into the refutation than is there, which is something that I see a lot of. MM showed Mann's method was invalid, they did not show that the conclusion was invalid. Various others since then and even MM's own corrected method applied to Mann's dataset do not refute the conclusion either.

 

[samtheman]

So the data is not important, just the conclusion? Go Global Warming!

 

[spike78]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12360898#post12360898 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
So the data is not important, just the conclusion? Go Global Warming!

And we have another great example in your long history of productive posting...

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12363158#post12363158 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spike78
And we have another great example in your long history of productive posting...

That's because nothing has been done or likely will be done about your big scare. Nobody is willing to give up heating or cooling thier homes, or walking to work. So we need energy, and the alternatives are poor at best unless you look at nuclear, which has already been killed by your last big scare.
I no longer care, just like many others in the world.
Worry about something you can change.

Make food into gas and watch the poor starve. Great work!

 

[greenbean36191]

So the data is not important, just the conclusion? Go Global Warming!

When did I say that?

I'll put it in reefing terms for you. If you say, "I measured my salinity with a swing arm hydrometer and it had climbed all the way to 40." Someone is likely to say, "Swing arm hydrometers aren't a reliable way to measure your salinity. Try a refractometer." Does that mean your salinity isn't 40? No, it means you used a method of questionable validity and you can't say with any certainty what your salinity is. If three other people come in and test your water with a properly calibrated refractometer, a conductivity meter, and a floating hydrometer and they all get a reading of 40 then your original conclusion that the salinity was 40 was most likely valid regardless of the method you used to reach it.

Nobody is willing to give up heating or cooling thier homes, or walking to work.

??? Who asked you to stop heating or cooling your home? No one ever asked you to live in a cave or even decrease your quality of live. I live in a large, modern condo with probably all the same modern conveniences and toys you have, but simple changes to eliminate waste have dramatically reduced my energy bills. Last month's electricity bill was almost $45 less than March of '07s and I haven't made any sacrifices to my quality of life. It also only cost me about $35 to make all those changes, so they more than paid for themself in a month. Simple things like improving insulation, changing out bulbs, keeping the thermostat a few degrees warmer or cooler, unplugging phantom loads, not running the washing machine on hot, etc. really can add up to make a big difference. There's a lot of wasted energy and it makes a lot of sense environmentally and economically to end it. Just FWIW, my power is nuclear and hydro, so I get no joy from claiming that my changes are going to save the world from CO2.

And yes, some people are willing to walk. I walk about 3 miles too and from work or school every morning. In an average month I use less than 8 gal of gas. Obviously that's not feasible for a lot of people, but there's also no reason for them to be driving a 15 mpg hummer through 30 miles of stop and go traffic everyday.

 

[samtheman]

Gosh,

Great savings, but how about as a percentage of your total energy usage including food, shelter construction, utilities, clothing, communication and such. How much energy are you saving as a percentage of the total?
You say that someone should not drive an SUV. How about boating? How about recreation, such as camping, or fishing, or drag racing. If you own a boat and choose to waste energy in that fashion, how is that worse than having an SUV?
Look at the amount of energy that goes into wine. Why not reduce your footprint and drink water?
We should shut down stadiums that are lighted. It would save gas if all those people stayed home.
The single biggest waste of energy in this country is electricty that is generated and not used. The grid must be prepared to provide the damand as people get up in the morning, or on a cold night. But the capacity must still be there and running. Why not shut down the grid at night and save that wasted capacity? It will be worth more than new light bulbs. Which by the way, I have used and instead of lasting years, many burnout in a few months. Also, they contain mercury. When I was in the metals business, I would have been fined for releasing the amount of mecury that is in one of those bulbs that I now throw in the trash so it can be land-filled.

 

[Wolverine]

Great savings, but how about as a percentage of your total energy usage including food, shelter construction, utilities, clothing, communication and such. How much energy are you saving as a percentage of the total?

So because the efforts people are making aren't a big enough percentage IYO, we shouldn't do anything?
You can take steps to mitigate some of your usage in every one of those categories you listed, shaving off a small percent here and there with very little effort.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12364317#post12364317 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
Which by the way, I have used and instead of lasting years, many burnout in a few months. Also, they contain mercury. When I was in the metals business, I would have been fined for releasing the amount of mecury that is in one of those bulbs that I now throw in the trash so it can be land-filled.

They can be recycled, so you don't have to throw them into the landfill

I'm not sure what's going on with the bulbs you're getting. We started using CF bulbs in 99, and so far we've replaced two. One of those was because the dog ate it out of the lamp.

 

[samtheman]

Well if small efforts will fix the problem then great. But population growth is running at 4-5% a year. I you can't do better than that, why try?

 

[samtheman]

Global Cooling?
by Dennis Avery

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continueâ€"but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300â€"œ1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950â€"œ1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BCâ€"œ 600 AD).

The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970â€"œ1998 has apparently ended.

Fred Singer, a well-known skeptic on man-made warming, points out that the latest cooling trend is dictated primarily by a very warm El Nino year in 1998. “When you start your graph with 1998,” he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.”

Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965. He points out that the current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2. Then the planet cooled for 35 years just after the CO2 levels really began to surge. In fact, says Carter, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between temperatures and man-made CO2.

For context, Carter offers a quick review of earth’s last 6 million years. The planet began that period with 3 million years in which the climate was several degrees warmer than today. Then came 3 million years in which the planet was basically cooling, accompanied by an increase in the magnitude and regularity of the earth’s 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles.

Speaking of the 1500-year climate cycles, grab an Internet peek at the earth’s official temperatures since 1850. They describe a long, gentle S-curve, with the below-mean temperatures of the Little Ice Age gradually giving way to the above-the-mean temperatures we should expect during a Modern Warming.

Carter points out that since the early 1990s, the First World’s media have featured “an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as ‘if’, ‘might,’ ‘could,’ ‘probably,’ ‘perhaps,’ ‘expected,’ ‘projected’ or ‘modeled’â€"and many . . . are akin to nonsense.”

Carter also warns that global coolingâ€"not likely for some centuries yetâ€"is likely to be far harsher for humans than the Modern Warming. He says, “our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 percent of the last 2 million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.”

Since the earth is always warming or cooling, let’s applaud the Modern Warming, and hope that the next ice age is a long time coming.

Dennis Avery is a senior fellow for Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and the Director for Global Food Issues (www.cgfi.org). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. Readers may write him at Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.


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

E-mail the Editor


© 2006 American Conservative Union Foundation 1007 Cameron Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: 703.836.8602

 

[billsreef]

If lots of people try, the effect is big even though it's only a few percent. If no one tries, well of course nothing will happen. Would you turn down a raise because it's so small compared to your total salary?

 

[billsreef]

BTW even if you don't want to believe in global warming as a reason to cut back on CO2, there is still ocean acidification

 

[MCary]

I gotta go with Sam on this one Bill. I know, huge surprise. You seem to miss the point. I'll bet if I posed the question to Sam correctly he would agree that oil based energy has a tremendous amount of problems. We've known that since the 1970's. Osama used oil money to start his little club. The price of oil today is straining our economy. It is a finite resourse, etc. But its like everything else that has a PR campaign against it. It places value judgments and it lies.

An Analogy. Everyone with half a brain knows that smoking marijuana to excess is bad. But the campaign against it says its the same as heroin and crank. Anyone of us that went to college in the 70's knows that's a lie.

So yes, using and especially wasting oil is bad. It would be nice if we could find an equal alternative. But to suggest that we're destroying the planet by using it in the abscence of any concrete evidence is a lie.

And to be lectured by those who use 1000 watt Mh's, or fly around in private jets (Algore), or fly airplanes (my other hobby and group I argue with about this) or as Sam says boating. It's just painful to listen too. People like to thing that nothing requires sacrifice. That they can live their lives or have their ideas and there will be no consequences. If AGW is really the scourge that is claimed, then you CANNOT fix it with baby steps. You must give up your pov and use mass transit, you must give up your reef, you must use 40 watt bulbs, etc etc. And if you don't then your just not serious and putting a cf bulb in your lamp is just a feel good, useless, excercise.

Next chapter:

I have avoided bringing this up because less intelligent people often miss the point, but this seems like an intelligent crowd so lets try:

I have often though that GW science reminds me of biblical anthropology. After WWII there was a big push by, now called, "biblical" anthropologists to excavate the holy lands. They started with the premise that the bible was "truth'. That is was a historical document. So they would go to a place where the bible descibed a town and started digging. When the found ruins they're go Eureka! we found it just like the bible says. Then they would continue under the assumption that is was a particulair town mentioned in the bible. Years later the town was reexamined and found to be an Egyptian city not a jewish one. Or found to be of a different time period etc.

Now we have global warming. It is considered to be fact. So ice breaks off in the antarctic and "boom" its global warming. No supportive evidence is needed. Drought, must be global warming. Record cold, well the bible of AGW says its from global warming, no further study is needed.

NOTES:

I'll put it in reefing terms for you. If you say, "I measured my salinity with a swing arm hydrometer and it had climbed all the way to 40." Someone is likely to say, "Swing arm hydrometers aren't a reliable way to measure your salinity. Try a refractometer." Does that mean your salinity isn't 40? No, it means you used a method of questionable validity and you can't say with any certainty what your salinity is. If three other people come in and test your water with a properly calibrated refractometer, a conductivity meter, and a floating hydrometer and they all get a reading of 40 then your original conclusion that the salinity was 40 was most likely valid regardless of the method you used to reach it.

No, because if you are a good scientist, you calibrated your measuring equipment, ran controls, and had the experiment reproduced in a independent laboratory

Half-truths are fallacious arguments.

Half truths are half true.

Greenland ice has thickened.... but that's due to changes in precipitation patterns

Yay! The drought is over. One of the severe consequences of AGW I understand.

The first thing that strikes me is that he's using a station 230 miles away and 130 miles north as proof of what's going on to the south

So what your saying is, the breakup is a local weather phenomenon. And if I understand from your previous posts, local weather phenoms do not prove or disprove the theory of AGW. It is just "noise".

I win.

Mike

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12367609#post12367609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
BTW even if you don't want to believe in global warming as a reason to cut back on CO2, there is still ocean acidification

Bill,

I am sorry you missed the point. Most of the Environmental Movement is wasted time and energy, that allows people to feel like they are making a contribution to saving the planet, while in fact what they are doing is so small, it will have no observable effect. Look at the recycling movement. We have warehouses full of old newspaper because it costs more to recycle it that its worth. Recycled glass isn't used because you can't control the color. Nobody wants to by something in a grungy looking bottle. But the cost of garbage collection is much higher and we spend a lot of energy sorting and moving worthless materials around.
Civilization depends on energy. We need more of it not less,
Why, because we allow unchecked population growth and immigration. All of these new citizens require energy and the demand keeps growing. Even if you could reduce usage by 10% through conservation, it will be eaten up in two or three years of growth. I won't change my life or make any effort at all until we face the real problem and quit treating the symptoms.
Buy your new light bulbs and feel good about yourself while we thoroughly trash this planet. Who seems to really care?

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12370269#post12370269 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
Bill,

I am sorry you missed the point. Most of the Environmental Movement is wasted time and energy, that allows people to feel like they are making a contribution to saving the planet, while in fact what they are doing is so small, it will have no observable effect. Look at the recycling movement. We have warehouses full of old newspaper because it costs more to recycle it that its worth. Recycled glass isn't used because you can't control the color. Nobody wants to by something in a grungy looking bottle. But the cost of garbage collection is much higher and we spend a lot of energy sorting and moving worthless materials around.
Civilization depends on energy. We need more of it not less,
Why, because we allow unchecked population growth and immigration. All of these new citizens require energy and the demand keeps growing. Even if you could reduce usage by 10% through conservation, it will be eaten up in two or three years of growth. I won't change my life or make any effort at all until we face the real problem and quit treating the symptoms.
Buy your new light bulbs and feel good about yourself while we thoroughly trash this planet. Who seems to really care?

While I agree on some points about recycling, I think you are off on a few points. That recycled paper could be used soon to produce bio-fuels. I know of plenty of placed (in Aus) recycling glass. Some even crush it up into sand. Recycling aluminum or steel cans is definitely worth it.

If you use energy more efficiently you will need less. Then you just need to produce the energy in a clean and renewable way. ie, not fossil fuels or nuclear. Even if you are a conservative surely this would make sense.

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12370545#post12370545 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Double post

 

[samtheman]

See there you go again. The reason aluminum and steel cans are recycled is that it makes economic sense. The environmental movement has nothing to do with it. The other products make no economic sense and so are not recycled.
Your logic is wrong on power. If you think there are enough places for windmills and solar panels, you are not being honest with yourself. Additionally, they do not reduce the load on the grid because they cannot be counted on when there is no wind or light. You need some way to store energy before these methods will help much at all.

Now tell me about bio-fuels and how great they are.

Finally, if you really fear CO2 then the only feasible approach is nuclear. But it has been the object of so much attention from the Environmental Movement that you can't build them anymore. Your best bet, and you killed it.

Conservation makes sense, if it solves the problem. But it does not, it just keeps the sick animal alive for a little longer, as the population pressure mounts.

You seem willing to tell me how to live my life, why don’t you feel the same way about telling people to quit having kids. There is a finite amount of resources, and if you are willing to let them be squandered, don’t tell me how I should live if you are afraid to face the true problem.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12367609#post12367609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
BTW even if you don't want to believe in global warming as a reason to cut back on CO2, there is still ocean acidification

This is just the "a means to an end" philosophy that has the rational public concerned.
I've heard too many of you people espouse the attitude that "even if we're wrong, conservation is still a good thing". I do believe conservation IS good.
Even I do quite a bit of it.
Having it forced upon us or using scare tactics to get us to fall in line is not going to go over as easy as some think it will though.
But...sadly, I'm afraid to say, in the end it won't really matter what the truth is. This issue is going to be used for all it's worth, to advance to fruition, the environmental agenda that has been brewing since the early 50's. In the mean time, just like the race hustlers and poverty pimps...the algores, GE's and the Enron's of the world will ride this wave of hysteria all the way to the bank.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12366956#post12366956 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine

They can be recycled, so you don't have to throw them into the landfill

No doubt they can be recycled but...does the energy used to recycle offset the energy saved by using them in the first place?
I got a chuckle out of this:
http://www.lamprecycling.com/store/products.aspx?id=6760&gclid=CJTIgeCY6pICFRY3lgodT1cj4Q

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12366956#post12366956 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine

One of those was because the dog ate it out of the lamp.

How did you take care of the situation? Did you have to call in the HAZMAT team? Did you at least follow the recomended disposal instructions that begin with evacuation of the room?