Global Warming..Science and Politics

[Tiroch]

I'm not here for the astronomy as I do that elsewhere.

Being a mining engineer with an education in geology I've taken to studying in depth climate on terms that far exceed our short term records of 150 years or so since the invention and use of the thermometer came along allowing meaningful record keeping.

I'm also curious that the frenzy over increased carbon dioxide by human activities being said to cause Global Warming (GW) has a time frame related to the commencement of the Industrial Revolution which is equal to the time the Sun radiance increased causing the 500 years long Mini Ice Age to go away.

It is hard to believe that anthropogenic effects are considered more an influence than Solar radiance fluctuations, cosmic rays (refer the recent Danish Space Academy test), natural carbon dioxide fluctuations caused by cycles in ocean temperatures and so on.

It is hard to believe mere humans are more powerful than Mother Nature.

Here is an interesting site on the history of climate over eons:

http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm

and direct to the Climate History page:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[Tiroch]

I wanted to add this link but have not figured out post submit after an edit:


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

[glenc (Glen)]

Bush and Howard did not believe in climate change until recently. Even now I doubt that they really do. Bush has been putting out all this propaganda against climate change and many people have been deceived. He is doing this to support his mates in the oil industry. But we can reduce CO2 without nuclear power, there are many alternatives such as gas, solar and wind. See http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_...pact/man1.html

[glenc (Glen)]

IT is no longer socially acceptable for Australia to keep exporting coal knowing the damage it is doing, according to the scientist and Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery. Professor Flannery said that in the future, coal would be seen as just as dangerous as asbestos is now. "As the situation unfolds and the matters get more critical, the world is not going to allow people to pollute our common atmosphere, as occurs at the moment," he told ABC television. "The social licence to operate those old polluting technologies will be withdrawn." He also advocated shutting down the coal-fired power stations that provide the bulk of Australia's electricity. "I think that we do need to ultimately close down those coal-fired power plants, but first we need to build the bridge to the new energy future." Professor Flannery said solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than nuclear power. His comments were immediately dismissed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who said to stop using coal would "be devastating to many communities throughout Australia". He said money would be better spent on developing technologies to clean up coal production. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...524236625.html

[Tiroch]

I thought I was signing into a serious thread about the world. Certainly I realize this is an Australian site with Australian issues about coal and yellowcake and trees and farms. But GW is a world issue.

GW is all about politics and the IPCC is pulling off a fraud:

Truth's heat lamp
Climate change report is hyped and politicized

By LICIA CORBELLA, Toronto Sun Feb. 8, 2007

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

-- Leo Tolstoy (1826-1910)

Clearly, Tolstoy -- the great Russian novelist -- wasn't writing about man-made global warming, since he predated this relatively recent hysteria. Nevertheless, the above quote certainly applies to the global warming debate or should I say the climate change consensus?

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts that world temperatures will possibly rise by 1.8C to 4C from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise by 28 to 43 cm.

Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker. The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise by 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by 9 to 88 cm.

In other words, in just six years predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!

At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!

Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected that the sun's output may wane leading to global cooling.

Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well. In 2001 the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre. Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.66 watts per square metre.

Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong? If a large automobile executive got his predictions wrong by up to 50% he'd be fired. The IPCC, however, continues to fly around at great cost to the UN and the environment and they stay on board this great gig as long as they continue to tout the party line -- that Earth is going to hell, only it's going to be even hotter.

What's most troubling, however, about all of this, is the 21-page, much hyped summary is not referenced at all. The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.

This is problematic on many fronts but 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."

In other words, past IPCC reports have proven to be fraudulent and yet, to paraphrase Tolstoy, they have been woven into the public policy fabric of our lives.
*********************************** ******

This fraud will likely succeed due to media complicity and the general population ignorance of the facts.

****************************
I tried to post a Google image about aerosol atmospheric contamination but the URL is 3x our page width so I skip that but I post the text ( know I
can copy/paste the image and resize and post)

Using Google search word anthropogenic click on Google Images and down the page a bit is an image over the Western Pacific near Taiwan showing aerosol pollution from China.

How Does Anthropogenic Haze Influence Climate?

high resolution 1000-pixel wide image (1.1 MB JPEG)
Greenhouse gases act broadly to warm the atmosphere, but human-induced aerosols (particles in the atmosphere) generate negative forcings?that is cooling of the atmosphere by reflection of the sun’s energy away from Earth. The above photograph from the Space Shuttle was featured in an article in Science magazine this week (Science vol. 300: 1103-1104). It shows haze from China spread over the Pacific Ocean, on March 4, 1996.

In the Science article, Anderson and coworkers point out that greenhouse gas forcing on climate is fairly well understood, but the effect of aerosols is not. Two ways of estimating the “forcing,” or push, on global climate caused by aerosols give inconsistent results. So-called “inverse” calculations constrain such cooling to a range of ?1.0 to ?1.9 Watts per square meter, whereas “forward” calculations suggest far greater negative forcing, as much as ?3 W/m2 or more. Photographs taken by astronauts illustrate the kind of reflective smog plumes that cause surface cooling.

The photograph shows a coherent corridor of anthropogenic haze (arrows), probably a mixture of industrial air pollution, dust, and smoke, in the left half of the view against the dark background of the East China Sea (Wilkinson et al. 2000). The corridor is ~200 km wide and probably much more than 600 km long (the visible length over the sea). In this southwest-looking view, the island of Taiwan appears top left and the east coast of China across the rest of the view. The picture was taken as the Space Shuttle flew over Okinawa. Shanghai lies at the near point on the Chinese coastline (top right)—about 650 km away. The transport of smog from East Asia has been confirmed in measurements of the atmosphere over North America.

The uncertainty in understanding aerosol forcing of global temperature means that its effect in counteracting greenhouse-gas warming is still largely unknown. The Science article concludes that the 0.6 Kelvin rise in average global surface temperature in the last 130 years may be due to natural variability in the atmosphere that could be far higher than currently understood; and/or to much higher sensitivity in the climate system. The article nevertheless concludes that by the middle of this century the absolute accumulation of greenhouse gases, compared to the non-accumulation of aerosols, “will inevitably result in a strong, positive forcing of Earth’s climate system”.

References
Anderson, T. L., R. J. Charlson, S. E. Schwartz, R. Knutti, O. Boucher, H. Rodhe, and J. Heitzenberg, 2003, Climate forcing by aerosols?a hazy picture, Science (16 May 2003) 300: 1103-1104.

M. J. Wilkinson, M. J., J. D. Wheeler, R. J. Charlson, and K. P. Lulla, 2000, Imaging Aerosols from Low Earth Orbit: Photographic Results From the Shuttle-Mir and Shuttle Programs, in K. P. Lulla and L. V. Dessinov (ed.) Dynamic Earth Environments, New York: Wiley. Ch. 6.

NASA photographSTS075-773-66, was taken March 4, 1996, 01:29:47 GMT, center point 28°N 123°E, craft nadir 28°N 128.1°W, from an altitude of 278 km, with a Hasselblad film camera and 40 mm lens. The image was provided by the Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory at Johnson Space Center. Additional images taken by astronauts and cosmonauts can be viewed at the NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth
*********************************** **********

Having no solid idea the influence of aerosols then how can there be a solid idea the influence of carbon dioxide? That is not logical. Please remember 'greenhouse gases' are a mixture of several chemicals.
*********************************** ********

That makes the silly idea of shooting up dust or setting up mirrors all the more ludicrous. We can't get the Iraq war straight. However can we believe we can mess with the atmosphere and get that straight? We already mess it up by industrial pollution, vehicle exhaust, cow gas and etc.
*********************************** ********

Has anyone ever thought about politicians and self centered pseudo scientists doing so much atmospheric damage through ignorance or disregard for Mother Nature's ways that we might all suffocate? freeze? bake? Take you pick as all or any are possible.

Think about that!

[xelasnave]

I know what we are supposed to think but I dont think that so by definition I must be "not real".
Clearly the hype saying there is scientific evidence that GW is something humans have caused and can control is pushed by special interests... and the purpose of me starting this thread was to draw attention to the way science is being corrupted by politics. Personally I have moved from one view of belief to one of disbelief simply by "looking" behind the "news".
We who believe in scientific method should be alarmed how politics corruptes even the un corruptable.
I have posted in the other forum a concern of mine re the tree planting thing ..it seems that tax concessions are available to investors placing their cash in forrests for paper pulp using valuable land that requires no irrigation and would be very valuable in a future in a country with massive water problems...however tax consessions for those who invest in food production are to be withdrawn.. funny about that so funny I could cry. Onw ould think in a country involved in wool production we could tell when it is being pulled over our eyes.
But I am on a positive bent so I like to think that maybe they can reduce energy consumption by having outside lighting and over night office lighting reduced... I have a special interest now that I spend near equal time between the bush and the city..I want a dark clear sky here as well.
Thanks for contributing here this is a general chat forum limited to astronomy and science but I think folk should know about the possibility that science is being used distastefully to push certain political barrows... science is the losser was my point.
alex

[glenc (Glen)]

Try reading http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...070208-03.html Until quite recently (perhaps even until last week), the general global narrative of the great climate-change debate has been deceptively straightforward. 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. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the United States and a handful of like-minded ideologues such as Australia's prime minister John Howard. 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.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Tiroch, didn't realise Wasaga Beach wasn't in Australia! Google tells me you're in Ontario.

Glad you're here though, I need some support in this thread!

Looking forward to reading your (and everyone else's) comments and links.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

... Clearly the hype saying there is scientific evidence that GW is something humans have caused and can control is pushed by special interests... and the purpose of me starting this thread was to draw attention to the way science is being corrupted by politics. Personally I have moved from one view of belief to one of disbelief simply by "looking" behind the "news".
....
Thanks for contributing here this is a general chat forum limited to astronomy and science but I think folk should know about the possibility that science is being used distastefully to push certain political barrows... science is the losser was my point.
alex

Religion, politics and other influences have affected the 'scientific method' (one of the greatest products of the human mind) ever since it was developed. It's understandable I suppose, but very unfortunate.

As I have a special interest in the topic of human-induced GW, I've put more into this thread than the astronomy ones (still a beginner in those). The GW business is a perfect example of your original point about "science being the loser".

Looks like you're winding up the topic ... just as well, I'm exhausted!

[Tiroch]

Far from winding up this guy in Ontario is just getting started as I'm a newbie.

It is easy to get exhausted doing an impossible but this is what I have to say:

This is about the media.

About 20 years ago I was at a party with my sons and one of their friends was there who worked in the news department of one of our national TV news services.

I was in a conversation with this guy and I said you people only print/video the news you figure we should see.

Well he went ballistic!

So be it and that is the media today. We are being GW'd because they so so.

*********************
We have have a tragedy unfolding and the 98 percenters (most of us) are going along while we the 2 percenters (the thinkers) stand by in a state of true disgust and powerless.

If these UN people et al keep at it the atmosphere will become unbreathable.

Why do we put up with this.

We cannot stop Mother nature.

We are not the guilty party.

GEEZ! It is so obvious it is pathetic that we are allowing ruination by media.

Frankly I'm more than appalled. I'm completely disgusted with complacency. Is it the UN and the politicians running our world? Well according to the 98 percenters the answer is yes.

I feel truly knowing but completely helpless and that is aggravating me.

[glenc (Glen)]

The Journal "Nature" is one of the main Scientific journals. This is not the just the media talking. The editor of "Nature" is saying climate-change skeptics are looking marooned and ridiculous.

[matt]

Yes. As a member of that all-powerful special group of people ie "The Media" ... I'll confess right here that we are all Bush stooges and there is a massive conspiracy that we are all in together... to rip you off, trick everyone and do everything within our considerable power to bring about the destruction of the planet and the complete collapse of civilisation.

It's all our fault and you're all gullible fools, except for you very special 10 percenters... the real thinkers. You blokes and sheilas who know what's really going on

Originally Posted by Tiroch

This is about the media.

About 20 years ago I was at a party with my sons and one of their friends was there who worked in the news department of one of our national TV news services.

I was in a conversation with this guy and I said you people only print/video the news you figure we should see.

Well he went ballistic!

So be it and that is the media today. We are being GW'd because they so so.

[xelasnave]

Now folks lets not get carried away .
Just let the facts speak for themselves.
If one takes the time to look at the facts available you will form an opinion you have the right to express the opinion . The behaviour of one person does not represent a profession and remember most people are honest hard working and contributingly in a positive manner . I was a real estate agent and accept there are really bad real estate agents out there so I would be unhappy to hear someone assessed me on their actions.. I tried to do it better and have references to say I did
I started this thread because of my percieved manipulation of political direction which sort to put the views of 50% of Australians on nuclear power to one side ..and that the manipulation involves science being used to push political barrows .... if you have followed this thread you can decide that one .. I say it is that way because I believe that! not trying to say I am the only one that thinks about stuff or that I know much of what is going on just saying this is my honest opinion.. not that it is correct.
Matt I can understand your responce, as seeing yourself as a professional in the media industry you could take it personal however I can not understand why you respond to people expressing an opinion that they present as knowing it all when they are trying simply to express themselves. Tiroch feels strongly and in your view over the top but I suggest he is concerned and expressing his view.
However Tiroch sticking to the facts available for inspection has more chance of people considering your view of same.
We all have opinions and it can be difficult to put them forward and we can feel frustrasted because we feel no one understands what is apparent to us but lets keep it "cool".
I am trying to be reasonable and accept I have been over the top, sounded arogant , displayed a greater than thou approach and many other things that simply come over in a way which I call unfortunate. I do the best with what I have and believe most people do the same.
I think we all see a problem with GW and are trying to make sence of what is going on but we dont need to get personal. The lead of our PM need not be followed to cut off debate ..the debate he said we should have... but it is not between people who are "real" and "not real" it is between concerned folk.
alex

[matt]

I was just joking, Alex. No-one's getting carried away.

And I wasn't accusing anyone of behaving/speaking like they "know it all".

I think you're revisiting old exchanges.

Let it go, mate.

If Tiroch has a problem with my comments he can respond to them. I don't see it necessary for you to defend him or act on his behalf, unless you are really defending yourself while appearing to defend someone else. That's not an uncommon human trait or behaviour. The psychology of that is fairly easy to see and understand.

I don't have a problem with people expressing themselves, Alex. I've even fought for your right to say whatever you want at a time you were looking to leave this forum and during other threads.

I'm sorry, Alex, but if I don't agree with what's being said I will exercise my right to express myself also. I will take an opposing view, if I wish, and express my opinion as strongly as I feel necessary. Please don't attempt to stifle me. That goes both ways, mate.

I think it's a bit of a cheap shot you've taken, actually. Roping my defence of my fellow media brethren into a separate debate to suit your own past agenda.

Sorry, mate. Just expressing myself

And just be careful with the word "facts".

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the debate/issue at hand

[ispom]

Oh Alex, almost not recognized you !
what do the people in Tabulam say about your new outfit?

here in a short contribute my opinion to the topic:
I always have pleaded for the further development of the nuclear energy,

In Germany (after newest polls) now 54% want it (after 5 years ago by law the disconnection was unfortunately decided)

And I think:
Australia could make the Outback to a flowering landscape using cheapy atomic power for demineralization of salty sea water.

Do I see that correct?

[mickoking]

I have believed in Man Made climate change since the late 70's, when I was in primary school. The real tragedy is it took that long before reaching the media spotlight. The media are usually on side with the powerful like GW Bush and Johnny H, but when they (the media) finally get of their arses and report on this serious problem some accuse them of a climate change 'Media Beat Up', sorry I dont buy that.

The simple fact is us, as a species have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and cutting down our forests in large quantities for over 150 years, of course that is going to have an effect. And there is ample scientific evidence to that effect.

I have stated this before but I honesty believe that denial of GW is a political view.

Sorry if I have got any ones noses out of joint

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by ispom;191562[FONT=Courier New

And I think:
Australia could make the Outback to a flowering landscape using cheapy atomic power for demineralization of salty sea water.

Do I see that correct?
[/font]

By turning the outback to an inland garden you have other problems to contend with like salination , soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. As it is we already have huge problems with salinity and rising water tables in much of our established agricultural land. presently we produce much more agricultural produce than we need, much of it is exported.

[ispom]

Originally Posted by mickoking

By turning the outback to an inland garden you have other problems to contend with like salination , soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. As it is we already have huge problems with salinity and rising water tables in much of our established agricultural land. presently we produce much more agricultural produce than we need, much of it is exported.

pump demineralized sea water op to a hill,

there it will well from the pipeline like a fountain,
let it flow into the flat country, there it will make the grass growing and flower the vegetables,
finally it will arrive at a salt lake or again into the ocean .

[xelasnave]

[QUOTE=ispom;191562]Oh Alex, almost not recognized you !
what do the people in Tabulam say about your new outfit?

I am a hermit when at Tabulam and a recluse when in Sydney
Last time I was in public at Tabulam I was Santa Clause but wore a faulse beard.
alex

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by glenc

Edward Wegmen was working for the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, you would expect him to say that. Also the data he used was old..

The article says that he worked pro bono.

and I would expect you to say that

Originally Posted by glenc

The fossil fuel industry is doing its best to discredit climate change and they have plenty of money and the US president on side.

nothing like a good conspiracy, is there Glen?