Global Warming..Science and Politics - Page 7

xelasnave · #**121** 09-02-2007, 11:08 PM

Mick my nose is outta joint but thats bcause I went base over apex stumbling over my guitar case in the dark

.
The point of these threads is to get people to get off their chest their views.
Opinions are (as I have said many times) like our children no one else can critise them we alone can do that and we protect them so one day they can stand on their own two feet... or something very similar

.
alex

Argonavis (William) · #**122** 09-02-2007, 11:15 PM

Glen, don't you read your own posts? Like the one below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

Have you read State of Fear? http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/ Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (Excerpted from State of Fear) "Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms. I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago." An interesting read about Eugenics. Glen

No doubt at the turn of the Centuary before last you could have got 2500 scientists to support eugenics, and an international body issuing a report on how the species is in decline etc etc.

The uncritical acceptance of this "science" led to Auschwitz and Dachau, and the stains of National Socialism.

A similar uncritical acceptance of the GW religion may well lead to similar consequences....(insert extremist vision here...well if they can do it so can I)

gaa_ian (Ian) · #**123** 09-02-2007, 11:59 PM

GW or not, we still need to be turning to renewable energy.
Oil will be lucky to see it out to the middle of this century.
Coal may last for 50 years or more perhaps (at what cost to the environment?)
Gas for a few hundred ?
But what then ? If we do not invest our "energy capital" into building renewable energy alternative's on a large enough scale, what will happen when the Non renewables go into decline & consequently rise in price ?
Global warming is happening (I believe this is an established & observable fact), are we the main cause, I don't know for sure

Do we need to do something anyhow ?
I believe the answer is yes !

Tiroch · #**124** 10-02-2007, 12:09 AM

My goodness there is a fair bit of wandering off topic it seems.

Having been on this Planet Earth for quite some time and being a natural born cynic and pragmatist with education and work experience in the matter of working stuff that Mother Earth gave mankind to use for its betterment, I concluded quite sometime ago that those that have no knowledge of such matters, to wit politicians, should not make decisions that tamper with serious stuff like our atmosphere.

In that regard I also believe that those that don't know anything about it, which is mainstream daily print/video media, should not profess knowledge of things like the complex GW issue without first declaring their ignorance and unqualified status to be critical of those that work to point out we mere humans cannot possibly be the guilty party on the GW file.

There is an agenda in play that is based on deliberate burying of the 'other side' views. That is the same as propaganda a dictator uses to keep control over his populace. For some unknown or unclear reason we have the same in play on GW.

An example of this re the IPCC summary report is this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

Now if anyone here can explain the reason for burying the 'other side' I would be pleased to know that.

okiscopey (Mike) · #**125** 10-02-2007, 01:24 AM

It's interesting to compare these extracts from two recent posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

... The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions ...
... The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiroch

... as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained that their work has been grossly misrepresented.

In 2001 two scientists complained publicly that their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the summary, including MIT physicist Richard Lindzen.

In June 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, wrote with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."

I know which version makes more sense.

If our science and future society is in the hands of 'opinion leaders', evangelical christians, Ralph Nader and Greenpeace, heaven help us.

In 2004 , 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who were in a position to understand the global warming issues, signed the following statement:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Oregon Petition Project http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

Obviously these 20,000 are not part of the "climate-science community".

Forget the junk science and 'opinion leaders' and look at some real data from satellite measurements:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

These data are collected at 30,000 points covering 80% of the earth's surface every day. The polar orbit rotates so that 100% of the earth's surface is covered every six days. The satellite data have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere using a completely different physical process.

Since 1979, although surface-station measurements show an 0.2 deg C rise per decade (probably due to the 'heat-island effect'), the NASA data show only 0.1 deg/decade.

That's 1 deg. C per century. You don't need to travel far north to experience this rise in temperature. As far as I know, everyone in Port Macquarie is doing just as well as I am here in Sydney.

xelasnave · #**126** 10-02-2007, 01:59 AM

Growers of illegal weed raise to 3% co2 into their growing chambers to promote plant growth on the premise that plants evolved in such an environment according to a bloke at the pub.. I know he is not in that line of work but apparently plants can only get their carbon content from co2...so although unconfirmed that is worth investigating as it would seem that good old mother nature may have it covered if that is the case. He said he looked into it because he was going to grow strawberries out of season and in a similar growing system to that used by "hydro"? growers. He said if it works on that stuff it should work on strawberries but what are your thoughts on that? I havent seen him for ages so I dont know if he tried it.
alex

ispom · #**127** 10-02-2007, 02:12 AM

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.

but what caused the global warming in the previous ages?

here a digest of papers of german scientists:
Natural climate variations from 10,000 years to the present day

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pg33/kihzhome/kihz05/mitarbeiter_en.html

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD

During the MWP the Vikingshad stockfarming on Greenland, cultivated wine until for south Scotland as well as south Norway, harvested on Iceland wheat and barley.
there was no human made CO2 excess.

Tiroch · #**128** 10-02-2007, 04:18 AM

In the matter of real science and not pseudo science:

The Deniers Part XI

End the chill
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 09, 2007

Who are the global warming deniers, those scientists who downplay the human cause of climate change, who claim that manmade climate change, if it's occurring at all, may have modest costs or even bring benefits, who claim that the science is not settled on climate change? To discover whether these deniers are crackpots from the fringes of academia, as their detractors so often claim, I decided to investigate scientists at odds with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the official body organizing the great bulk of the climate research that dominates the public airwaves.

After writing 10 columns on the subject, one for each "denier" and his theories, one fact is undeniable: The science is not settled. Not on man's role in causing the warming we've seen this century. Not on the consequences of this warming. Certainly not on the extent of warming -- or cooling-- to come.

The deniers I have written about are not just credible; they have reached the pinnacle of the scientific establishment, with credentials to rival those of any of scientists representing the IPCC position. Here's Russia's Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the country's renowned Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, a member of Russia's Academy of Science. Or Henk Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Or Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute. Or Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

Or, for a more direct comparison of scientists in the denier and the "science is settled" camps, consider Richard S. J. Tol, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, or Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, or Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. These three -- among the most cited scientists in the world in the field of climate change-- were universally acclaimed IPCC scientists until they disagreed with the positions espoused by the IPCC leadership. These deniers may no longer have an unqualified IPCC stamp of approval, but their academic credentials, record of scientific discoveries, and scientific prizes remain for all to see.

Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these 10, I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among the 10 welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. Tol denies being a denier, as does Nigel Weiss, astrophysicist at Cambridge University, who called my portrayal of him a "slanderous fabrication." The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called "the scientific method" and lauded.

Most of the 10 especially object to being called "deniers" because they do not at all deny the existence of global warming, only what they see as erroneous and even outlandish claims from climate change alarmists. "Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in [human caused] climate change'?," protested Tol. "I published one of the first papers [in 1993] that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions." Tol believes that the IPCC bureaucracy is forcing out many of the best who once were part of the IPCC process, and he is also scathingly critical of work he considers bereft of integrity, such as the U.K. government's highly publicized Stern review, which last year painted alarmingly dire scenarios. "The Stern review does not contribute to this cause. It is so badly researched and argued, and so full of hyperbole, that it is bound to backfire," Tol argued. Although he continues his involvement with the IPCC, those who don't find him pure enough call him a denier still.

Although most of the 10 deniers see little or no evidence from their own work that humans harm the climate, most nevertheless blame humans for global warming, on the basis of research conducted by others. In effect, most of these scientists are saying: "Don't call me a denier --I'm sure the research by others is sound. It's just that, in my own area of research, I have found nothing of concern."

So what science might these 10 endorse, based strictly on their own research, rather than the research that they accept from the IPCC consensus?

First, the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the single biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large potential source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if Antarctica is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole, is actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and deltas of the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the several-kilometre-thick ice in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts it -- an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience economic losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The northern hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a warming, while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global warming might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

Hurricanes? Not an issue, says Christopher Landsea.

Data showing that recent temperature increases are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium? A misunderstanding of statistics by IPCC scientists, says Edward Wegman.

Human activity is driving climate change? Not much, says astrophysicist Nir Shaviv of Israel's Racah Institute of Physics, who found that the sun dominates climate change. Maybe not at all, says Svensmark, who has discovered the mechanism through which cosmic rays form clouds on Earth. Irrelevant, believes Abdussamatov, who states global temperatures have peaked, and predicts a century of global cooling.

These 10 scientists are extraordinarily distinguished, accomplished, and deserving of our respect. But they do not have a monopoly on the truth, just as the IPCC does not. Much more research in many more fields needs to be done before we can assess the role of man with any confidence. Until then, it would behoove us all to drop the term denier from the scientific lexicon. Answers will come more quickly in a climate not chilling to scientific investigation.
_________________

glenc (Glen) · #**129** 10-02-2007, 04:52 AM

I have looked at both sides of the argument ( http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/ and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...070208-03.html ) and I think it is dangerous to keep on pouring CO2 into the atmosphere when there are renewable alternatives. If you don’t believe in climate change you should write an article for the journal “Nature” (or another similar respected scientific journal) and they will publish it if it has merit. I won't hold my breath.

Tiroch · #**130** 10-02-2007, 06:03 AM

Glen I never said I don't believe in climate change. Not sure the reason you deduced that.

Yes the climate is warming. No it is not by carbon dioxide in the main. No it is not by anthropogenic activities in the main. Yes it is by increased Solar radiation. Yes it is by cosmic rays. Yes it is by the precession of the Earth.

As per the link I posted to the Paleomar Project and the link to Climate History and the graph of temperature as in warm, moderate and cool over eons that is Earth Science information gathered from fossil, ice and other records. We are currently exiting a cool period. As well the Earth's natural condition is to be much warmer than now.

There is something called the 2% Temperature Target. A look at the data in the above mentioned Climate History makes me comment thusly:

Well that is the first time I've seen a cap to the GW temperature. It must have come from a EU supported computer modeling scientific group that enjoyed the largess of EU funding. Computer modeling is only as good as the inputs. With weather that means a lot of inputs are nothing more than guesses.

Who is to say 2% is the right number. If one looks at the link on the Paleomar Project and Climate History one will note most of Earth climate history is a warm cycle (22 deg). The graph shows we are currently exiting a cool cycle (12 deg.). There are two past incidences of rapid exiting and from the Permian to near the end of the Tertiary no exiting from warm (100 million years) except a brief period between the Jurassic and Cretaceous when the temperature was in a 17 deg. phase. Also the cool phases generally lasted 50 - 75 million years.

However these are global average temperatures. We can still have Ice Ages in the Northern Hemisphere in a Cool Phase and no Ice Ages in this phase as these are short term relative to the length of a Cool Phase thus not altering the average temperature over millions of years to any discernible amount.

The Carbon Cycle is a massively complicated thing (refer to the National Geographic issue Sep. 2004) that involves interaction between solar activities, atmosphere, oceans, vegetation, geologic events, cosmic particles, natural disasters, animal flatulence (methane) and humans. I put humans last as we are the least in the cycle.

On another issue the IPCC summary report by using phrases likely and very likely and then concludes a certainty puts the science used in the realm of pseudo science as real science follows the scientific method and concludes a truth after verifying experimentation. That has not been done on this file.

By forcing an ending to the debate by declaring humans the guilty party, if there was ever any real debate, the UN is pushing humankind into a situation of wasting trillions of money units on an irrevocable situation. The UN is putting humankind as more powerful than Mother Earth and the Sun.
And that must be seen by any logical person to be wrong.

If we can't get a war right (as in the Iraq Invasion), how to we mess with our atmosphere and hope to get that right - whatever right is.

To me humans mess with the atmosphere by polluting it. The trillions could go to the following important and solvable things:

Clean Water Supply
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Diseases
Famine

Maybe out of cleaning the air we might even make the warm worse but at least we would breath cleaner air.

glenc (Glen) · #**131** 10-02-2007, 07:06 AM

Tiroch said "Glen I never said I don't believe in climate change." That is good. The IPCC report says there is a 90% chance that GW is caused by people, it does not say it is certain. I insure my car and house even though I may never need it, and I think it is wise to "insure" against climate change. You said "real science follows the scientific method and concludes a truth after verifying experimentation." Popper argues that you cannot verify anything you can only disprove it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper . Can you quote articles from respected scientific journals that support your case? Do any major scientific journals argue that GW is certainly not caused by humans?

Tiroch · #**132** 10-02-2007, 08:36 AM

It is really that the scientific journals do not publish articles by Deniers, at least none I know. In any event Deniers means the body of scientists on the virtually unheard side of the situation.

It is not 'I said' about the scientific method. That is the accepted way.

Popper is writing the same as this phrase I coined 20 years ago:

There is no truth only misconceptions - to wit if one goes with that than nothing is truth.

A 90% rating is virtually the same as saying it is true. No need to split hairs, I suppose.

In any event the mainstream media has reported that the IPCC summary concludes GW is caused by humans. Maybe they dropped the 90% qualifier to further enforce their view that that is so. Think about that as people get their opinion from the media and not by reading a report.

Argonavis (William) · #**133** 10-02-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

I insure my car and house even though I may never need it, and I think it is wise to "insure" against climate change.

so the entire coal industry should be shut down?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...45-953,00.html

GW, even if true, will have only modest consequences. The IPCC summary would indicate this. It is just that some have taken the hysteria to new levels

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...56-952,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...56-952,00.html

"lack of action will have dire consequences" says Rudd

It seems that action will have even more dire consequences.

Clearly not everyone believes the hysteria, or otherwise Sydney harbourside properties would be selling for less than $50,000.

glenc (Glen) · #**134** 10-02-2007, 09:38 AM

If there was a 90% chance that my house would burn down this year I would insure it. (I do anyway) The same goes for GW, the risk is high and it is time to act, even though Canadians wish for GW in winter.

The coal industry needs to pay for the damage they do and that will make renewable energy more competitive, and news.com.au should be taken with a grain of salt.

Tiroch · #**135** 10-02-2007, 10:12 AM

It seems Glen you do not get the point. Why do you think insurance when the only insurance we have about GW is to act to protect what we can from the effects.

We cannot succeed to stop a Mother Nature/Solar event. Eons of Earth Science history proves the event is mostly natural.

The risk is not only high, it is the new reality. And so will be the following Ice Age (history again). None of us nor any of our kids, or their kids, or their kids and so on will be alive to experience it but it will be. Que Sera Que Sera or some such.

Why can't you accept that?

And yes GW would be heaven here. Do you own a snow blower?

okiscopey (Mike) · #**136** 10-02-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

... The coal industry needs to pay for the damage they do and that will make renewable energy more competitive, ...

What's this "they do"? Sounds like a hostile foreign power white-anting us from the inside!

The coal industry, although less than perfect in the health and pollution stakes, was developed by "us". Our own ancestors created it and we continue to use it and reap the benefits.

Now, on the strength of doom-and-gloom predictions that don't correspond with real-word data, we have to turn around and bite the hand that fed and clothed us, kept us warm or cool, and provided the conditions for better health and intellectual advancement.

Renewable energy needs to stand on its own technological feet, not be made viable by forcing arbitrary taxes on conventional power generation (i.e. the taxpayer).

xelasnave · #**137** 10-02-2007, 12:27 PM

sounds like "has" an inferrence that one ""is".. not helpful in keeping this thread from being withdrawn.not saying you meant it that way but I could see it would be an upsetting thing.. Passion on this issue can not be negative it wont help the cause of truth.
I respectfully suggest we be kinder to each other even though our blood may be boiling with passion for action ..whatever.
Alex

xelasnave · #**138** 10-02-2007, 12:35 PM

Tirock and I have discussed this in another forum and it seems there is so much to it and there is but what becomes clear is even if we as a species somehow could perform the impossible and not as a species put one moleule of co2 into the air and as far as green house gass leave no imprint of humanity on the planet ther remains a reality that has to be addressed. It is what do we do when it happens because it is going to happen. We are geting sidelined from focusing one the real problem which requires more than power stations etc. I requires the posibility that it will warm very quickly and the consequences need to be looked at as best we can and plan for that world ..We can not stop it is I think the message finally so what will we do then not waste money on trying to stop it..history gives us the percentages..we can not stop it dont waste energy trying use energy to live in a world where it has arrived.
alex

xelasnave · #**139** 10-02-2007, 01:04 PM

That was not clear perhaps..dont spend money trying to stop it we can not so spend money to prepare for that world. The debate should be being argued what to do when it is here. AND in thats aspect that is being missed I feel, that not be in line with what Tirock and I have discussed elsewhere but thats the view I have formed and I confess it is hard to focus. WE cant prevent it we can only live with it so spend money for new structures needed in that new world. Whichever view one takes it seems that should be addressed maybe.
alex

Tiroch · #**140** 10-02-2007, 01:35 PM

And that is the real truth. Who are we mere humans saying we can stop, slow or abate that which Mother nature is doing and has done for eons.

My goodness who do we think we are! Bigger than Mother Nature! My goodness how ever truly human selfish.

And that is the sad part.

I would love to breath cleaner air. Fine. I would love that many in the world get drinkable water. Fine. I would love that malaria would be killed off as it was with DDT and Silent Spring book by Carson stopped that so millions died. So much for greenies and the disaster these types have allowed to happen. Is it OK to be Green and allow people to die? Yeah it seems to these eco terrorists. PETA and all that.

Face it GW is a reality and it is not us (Sun) so start figuring a coping way.

Otherwise I see pee in the wind