This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meisen,

Good point and I essentially agree with everything you said.

However, how long have we been "observing" the climate?

The very same "geological blink of an eye" amount of time.

I know greenbean argues that we know all the data back till forever ago, but a LOT of the interpretation that goes into knowing what happened in the past is based on the very models we are discussing.

Stu
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15638426#post15638426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Meisen
I know I have commented somewhere back a ways but I'll say it again. Flawed or unflawed climate models, political agendas and the nefarious plans of mad scientists everywhere aside, look at this from a very simplistic view.

It took the earth a long time to store up the amount of sequestered carbon. Like millions of years. Maybe a little less, maybe a little more. There is a lot of it stored. Its clearly a mechanism for storing carbon ie everyone agrees there is a lot of carbon tied up in the world's oil, coal and natural gas deposits, right? We found a lot of it, some say as much as half of it already. We released (and continue) releasing as much of that carbon as we could in less than 150 years. In fact the profit motive means there is a strong drive to not only release as much as we can of it but to keep increasing (well, global economic meltdown notwithstanding) the rate at which we burn it. We'll keep doing that unless heed is paid. The effects are probably complicated, perhaps beyond our ability to figure out. But some basic ones we can count on are increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the ocean.

Isnt it just the slightest bit concerning to anyone that we should release a significant portion of millions of years of carbon sequestering in a geological blink of an eye? That we cant imagine a way to replicate that process in any kind of human time scale. And all this delay to action because of a small but vocal minority of the earth's inhabitants seem to think it's a hoax, or a polictical agenda or whatever (or, my favorite, bad for business). Seems to me anyone who would argue against being concerned, reducing consumption, taking some steps even, has a stake in the status quo (or thinks they do).

;)





Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15609232#post15609232 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
I Guess Rossini must be right!
I think it is true that ALL scientists believe in GW.

We cant trust ANY of these 54 scientists, especially:

Ivar Giaever
Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nobel Prize in Physics 1973


Here's quote from their letter to the American Physical Society:

"Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate."

Another point that has been made ( or attempted to be made ) about the validity of climate models earlier in this forum.

http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/APS.htm

Apparently we cant trust a bunch of members of the APS either.

Stu
Click to expand...

I think you need help.

I said every MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTUTION not individual scientists. So please stop putting words in my mouth to suit your denial agenda.

I am perfectley aware there are a few crazy, uncredible sceintists around who deny the science of climate change and the scientific community. It's these loonys that have ruined the chances of sorting out this huge problem out, years and years have been wasted. They have conned large sections of the general public. It's a disgrace and quite frankly so are you. Greenbean should be given a medal of honour for the patience he has shown trying to commuicate proper knowledge to 'people' like you. You would rather pass BS off as the truth. WHY? what are you scared off?


I'll ask you again. Find me a major scientific instution that refutes the scientific conseous of man made global warming. Not individual looneys, INSTUTION's. By the way. Good luck. :rollface:
 
Rossini,

I call complete BS!!

Here is an exact cut and paste of what you said:

"I will just throw this out there, in the past 10 years there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published on the issue of global warming . All, repeat ALL, are in agreement that the Earth has been in an excelerated warming trend. "

So to reiterate WHAT YOU SAID IS:

"there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published" AND "All, repeat ALL have been in agreement."

So you were stating that EVERY JOURNAL ARTICLE said that the Earth is in an accelerated warming trend.


NOWHERE in your original statement did you say the words "MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTUTION ".

So WHO needs help? I think you do with your memory.


SO 130 German Scientists & 54 American Physical Society Scientists ( including a Nobel prize winner ) consistute AN "individual scientist "????

Stu
 
Here is yet another example of an effect on our climate that we still do not understand:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Are_Sunspots_Disappearing_999.html

Here's a quote:

"In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists. "

Note the "still baffles scientists" part.

If the solar scientists cannot model the odd behavior of the sun, how can that be incorporated into the climate model?

The answer is it CANT BE.

So we have the number one climate forcing effect and the Solar scientists cannot predict future behavior.
I believe that puts the climate model into a less credible stance.

Stu
 
QUOTE]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15647806#post15647806 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Rossini,

I call complete BS!!

Here is an exact cut and paste of what you said:

"I will just throw this out there, in the past 10 years there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published on the issue of global warming . All, repeat ALL, are in agreement that the Earth has been in an excelerated warming trend. "

So to reiterate WHAT YOU SAID IS:

"there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published" AND "All, repeat ALL have been in agreement."

So you were stating that EVERY JOURNAL ARTICLE said that the Earth is in an accelerated warming trend.


NOWHERE in your original statement did you say the words "MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTUTION ".

So WHO needs help? I think you do with your memory.


SO 130 German Scientists & 54 American Physical Society Scientists ( including a Nobel prize winner ) consistute AN "individual scientist "????

Stu [/QUOTE]

What i'm refering to is this challenge that you never came back to me on. Here it is.

"I'm going to give you a list of major institutions or concur with the IPCC. Then I'd you to list all the major institutions that dont concur with them."

It's a couple of pages back on this thread. Page 14. You might remember the huge list of major scientific institutions statements concuring with the IPCC.

I will say it again. I know there are the odd maverick, uncredible scientists around. They shout and scream enough bull, who could not know about their sad existance.

Anyway back to my challenge. I know you can find these hilarious scientists who are totally uncredible and bent. But can you find a major scientific institution that agrees with them? Infact can you find an scientific institution who doesnt expose their pseudo science within minutes? Again. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
greenbean36191
"In relation to climate change, it has no legs. The fact that the earth is bombarded by GCRs is well established. The link to climate change, especially as a significant driver is not established."

Well E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler dont completely agree with you ( 'The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming' appeared in Astronomy & Geophysics, August 2000. Vol 41, Issue 4, pp 18-22. )

http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html

Quote:

"Taken at face value, our results imply that, possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity."


Or J. Ramirez, B. Mendoza, V. Mendoza,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=7429803da0cbfc9f4e593c54979e17c8

"œWe have used the thermodynamic model of the climate to estimate the effect of variations in the oceanic cloud cover on the surface temperature of the Earth in the North Hemisphere (NH) during the period 1984"“1990. We assume that the variations in the cloud cover are proportional to the variation of the cosmic ray flux measured during the same period."



And none of them even mention the acute effects if there were a local supernova in the past that we dont know about.




greenbean36191
"œNor would they be useful to model. Models are interested in trends. Rare occurrences with no trend or cyclicity on relevant timescales can be ignored, especially if they render the question posed by the model moot."


Either I am missing something, or you are not getting my point.

An example: What was the cause of the "œlittle ice age" of 1400s to 1700s?
If we have NO evidence of: Super Volcanoes, abnormal solar activity, or asteroid impacts, then the climate modelers will try to come up with theories based on terrestrial forcings. They will then tweak their model until they come up with something that fits the data.

IF we then find that one of these above examples DID OCCUR, then that invalidates the model and the climate modeler goes back to the drawing board since his previous assumptions of terrestrial forcings is wrong.


greenbean36191
"œIn planning for retirement do you take into account that civilizations periodically collapse and their money becomes worthless? No, because it's unlikely to happen and unpredictable. Even if you assumed it would happen in the near future it would not help you make any decision about where to put your money."

Good example, I shall use it to make my point.
If I tell someone "œI don't need to save money for retirement because my parents didn't save ANY money and they are very wealthy in their retirement".
This would be poor advice to someone if you failed to explain to them that your parents won the lottery THEN went into retirement.

The lottery is an outside influence to the model and if not accounted for could lead someone to think that the future looks rosy even if they don't save. This is very similar to having an invalid model and not knowing it because of an unknown outside influence.

I am not suggesting we need to model future catastrophes, I am saying that if we DONT know about past catastrophes, then it is impossible to know if our model is correct.

Stu
 
Very interesting stu. I was wondering where you were going with all the catastrophic event talk. It didn't make sense to me until your last post.

Scott
 
Sorry about the funky question marks....

It must have been Word smart quotes...


ScooterTDI,

Thanks I am guessing Gbean didnt get my point either.
I am just stressing the point that we dont even know if the PAST climate models are correct even if they fit the data.


Stu
 
i skipped reading this thread after the first 2 posts, these threads all seem to be the same after a while. just my 2 cents on computer models. one of the most researched computer models around is madden football. if you run last season a bunch of times you will rarely get the results the real season had. the earths weather is way more complex than a football leagues season. those of you who have faith in those models need to remember who made those models and perhaps consider that those people have a vested interest in fueling hysteria over warming. i do not expect to change any opinions on this, it is never worth trying to change someones religious beliefs.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15680287#post15680287 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by skanderson
i skipped reading this thread after the first 2 posts, these threads all seem to be the same after a while. just my 2 cents on computer models. one of the most researched computer models around is madden football. if you run last season a bunch of times you will rarely get the results the real season had. the earths weather is way more complex than a football leagues season. those of you who have faith in those models need to remember who made those models and perhaps consider that those people have a vested interest in fueling hysteria over warming. i do not expect to change any opinions on this, it is never worth trying to change someones religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15648375#post15648375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
QUOTE]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15647806#post15647806 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Rossini,

I call complete BS!!

Here is an exact cut and paste of what you said:

"I will just throw this out there, in the past 10 years there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published on the issue of global warming . All, repeat ALL, are in agreement that the Earth has been in an excelerated warming trend. "

So to reiterate WHAT YOU SAID IS:

"there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published" AND "All, repeat ALL have been in agreement."

So you were stating that EVERY JOURNAL ARTICLE said that the Earth is in an accelerated warming trend.


NOWHERE in your original statement did you say the words "MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTUTION ".

So WHO needs help? I think you do with your memory.


SO 130 German Scientists & 54 American Physical Society Scientists ( including a Nobel prize winner ) consistute AN "individual scientist "????

Stu
Click to expand...


What i'm refering to is this challenge that you never came back to me on. Here it is.

"I'm going to give you a list of major institutions or concur with the IPCC. Then I'd you to list all the major institutions that dont concur with them."

It's a couple of pages back on this thread. Page 14. You might remember the huge list of major scientific institutions statements concuring with the IPCC.

I will say it again. I know there are the odd maverick, uncredible scientists around. They shout and scream enough bull, who could not know about their sad existance.

Anyway back to my challenge. I know you can find these hilarious scientists who are totally uncredible and bent. But can you find a major scientific institution that agrees with them? Infact can you find an scientific institution who doesnt expose their pseudo science within minutes? Again. Good luck. [/QUOTE]

i already asked this like 1,000 times, they dont think that a major institution is more credible than a single scientist..:lol:

but if everyone believed in the most credible (almost obvious choices) that the majority of scientist concur with, their would be no debate!
 
Yes, they are talking about energy transfer to the magnetosphere, but the energy transferred must eventually be dissipated as thermal energy. It is still an energy input to the system that is probably not being modeled.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15695667#post15695667 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i already asked this like 1,000 times, they dont think that a major institution is more credible than a single scientist..:lol:

but if everyone believed in the most credible (almost obvious choices) that the majority of scientist concur with, their would be no debate! [/B]
Click to expand...

Thats not true. It has nothing to do with credibility in my mind. Even the most credible sources still get things wrong sometimes. There is no reason to withold skepticism just because a source is considered credible.

If everyone always believed the most credible sources then we would still believe many things that are incorrect. Every scientific revolution is counter to the conventional wisdom of the time. Skepticism, dissention, and debate are integral to scientific discovery. If you don't believe that, then you need to go back and read some books on the history of scientific progress.

Scott
 
ok, fine scott.


but just play along, humor me, and list say....3 major organisations.

i understand that scientist have been wrong in the past, but the majority of scientist, and the vast majority of the most credible associations believe. what more proof do you need. i'm not saying dont be skeptical. but if they tell you to act, you act.

if your doctors tell you you need heart surgery, are you going to say...well my priest said he could cure it with herbs so no thank you?
 
I will say one thing about this. its not man made, but man has had a helping hand in it. Climate change happens from time to time, and will happen weather were here and make it happen or were gone and nature makes it happen. But the planet knows how to handle its self. it may lead to radical changes but from chaos comes order. And we as people are more then smart enough to live through all most any thing that comes our why.

and on a lighter side maybe Dino farts killed of the dinosaurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul B
IMO How to set up a tank to stay healthy and immune
2
Replies
20
Views
770
Paul B
Paul B
Fiish
Nitrites and nitrate toxicity
Replies
10
Views
566
Fiish
Fiish
Paul B
Earthworms as fish food
Replies
4
Views
353
xLennie
xLennie
3
Ammonium Chloride and oxidizer (KMnO4), to grow corals, less water changes, and very low organo-phosphates:
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
JCOLE
JCOLE
Noah_Reefing
An essay on sustainable fishing
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
jamsymaz
J
Back
Top