BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??
Page 1 2 3 4 ... 59

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Who says the Science is settled??
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
Excellent article that shows how things get twisted for political reasons and ignore the science.

Hurricane Hysteria Revisited


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
An other article to show the real science and not the politics. Analyzing Global-warming Science


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks ScareCrow. Be carefull though, there's only so much room for rational thinking! Funny how fast hysteria can spread. It is about time we go back and revisit some of the predictions that have been made over the last 50 years and see how many have been correct. P.S. How come in the summer it's called Global "Warming" and in the winter it's called Global Climate Change?
 
Registered: January 29, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Good article SCrow.

A few interesting observations on the whole Global Warming Debate:

The discussion seems to divide into two groups.

One believes that global warming is caused mostly by natural processes and that human activity has made some contribution. They urge people to read all the science on the subject, to keep an open mind, and draw their own conclusions.

The other group believes that global warming is caused by human activity, and that Al Gore and the IPCC have all the answers and anyone who disagrees is a nutcase or worse.

The attitudes displayed on this forum seem to illustrate those positions quite well. It's quite telling that all the name calling is clearly one-sided.

Those who are into name calling and personal attacks just go on my ignore list. [22\02\08]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pssst Scarcrow

here's your "real" scientist

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Now why would Robinson need to do that?

And how does a bio chemist become an expert in climatology.

Could you please explain that for me?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Ah very good, you indeed prove John's point.

And why would the expert on Global Warming, Al Gore, do what he is doing. Because he wants to increase taxes, control peoples lives, and make money off of the green business. GE, who is associated with NBC, is already making a fortune of the fear generated from the greeneies. Taking advantage of people for the fear generated out of this man made global warming is no different than profiteering off of a natural disaster like Katrina.

A bio chemist becomes an expert because he knows the basic science and can understand how it all works. It's sort of the same thing as a a person wit ha liberal arts degree becoming a doctor or lawyer. Unlike politicians, these folks actually know what they are talking about.

And there is a web site, I believe it is Junk Science, that is offering $200,000 to anyone who can prove that global warming is caused by humans. To date, no one has done it. Why?? Because they can't


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And I believe you have just proven mine

Thanks


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Here is some interesting information that always seems to get lost Cryospheric Climate Indicators Notice that sea ice is declining in the Northern Hemisphere and increasing in the Southern Hemisphere. How come we never hear about that? Because it doesn't meet with someones agenda. I say to hell with the agendas, let us pursue the truth.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
More downplayed news that didn't fit the popular agenda:

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,"

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find
Last Updated: Friday, February 15, 2008 | 9:17 AM CT
CBC News

There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.
Continue Article

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Notice that sea ice is declining in the Northern Hemisphere and increasing in the Southern Hemisphere.


here's something more recent

Increasing Amounts Of Ice Mass Have Been Lost From West Antarctica

andhere

I don't think one winter will rebuild the ice cap,lets wait till next summer and see what sticks around.


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Of note, the loss is only in the West of Antartica. Some studies have shown an increase in the east and interior do to increasing storms. This article here talks about it and points to references Global Warming, Melting Ice Caps and Rising Sea Levels Yes it is an article and not peer reviewed. Yes it is 2 years old. Yes it does talk about peer reviewed articles (which in most cases cost a lot of money to read). Yes it is hard to find this information as it doesn't meet the needs of the press, mainstream media, politicos, and environmental groups.

Funny thing, the article speaks of increasing hurricanes hitting the US, do you realize that since 2005 and Katrina there have been no major hurricanes?

This article here talks better about the ice melt The Contribution of the Cryosphere to Changes in Sea Level Funny thing is they don't talk about the decrease in sea level do to the melting of ice already in the oceans. Think of putting ice cubes n a glass of water. The ice doesn't melt and make the glass overflow. In fact, when water freezes it actually expands, so the melting of ice below the surface (which is about 90% for most icebergs) will actually cause a decrease in sea level. If you don't believe me do an experiment. Use a tall glass or cylinder. Make up some ice water in a separate vessel. Fill the cylinder with ice cubes. Now fill the vessel with ice water to remove the voids. Measure the height of the water. Do this at ten minute intervals until the ice is melted completely. Then continue until the ice reaches room temperature, or some higher temperature if you wish. You will then understand ice melt.

It should also be noted that much of the ice melt in Greenland has been attributed to volcanic activity.

And if you look at the graphs of ice in both areas you will notice that these are general trends that have been occurring since the 1970s. These aren't one year events.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
"Of note, the loss is only in the West of Antartica. Some studies have shown an increase in the east and interior do to increasing storms."

This 10 year study based on more accurate date concluded the rest of Antarctica was stable.

quote:
Meanwhile the ice mass in East Antarctica has been roughly stable, with neither loss nor accumulation over the past decade.


that's the second paragragh,you should have read it.

quote:
They arrived at a best estimate of a loss of 132 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 from West Antarctica -- up from about 83 billion tonnes in 1996 -- and a loss of about 60 billion tonnes in 2006 from the Antarctic Peninsula.

Professor Bamber said: "To put these figures into perspective, four billion tons of ice is enough to provide drinking water for the whole of the UK population for one year."


That's a lot of ice loss.

Here's another one Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

Notice how I produce Peer reviewed data that's currant?

While you make claims without much substance

as for your hurricane claims,you better check the national hurricane center,there have been plenty of hurricanes since /05

the reasons for not finding peer reviewed science isn't the press,it's the claims your making


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Southern Ocean rise due to warming, not ice melts
quote:
Melting sea ice or Antarctic ice shelves jutting into the ocean do not directly add to sea level rises.

quote:
In summer, an increase in phytoplankton brought about by the greater light caused the Southern Ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than in colder months, he said.


Check it out!!! a warmer ocean absorbs more CO2, therefore a warmer ocean is better!!

By the way. The article you produced in the above is not a peer reviewed research paper. 98% of the people wouldn't be able to understand a peer reviewed research article nor would they take the time to read it. The actual articles go into science and terms that the average person just doesn't understand.

Just to help you out, here is a link to a peer reviewed research paper. Extraterrestrial accretion from the GISP2 ice core You will note they are written by a team, have some very specific titles, lots of data and herbage, and include references and biographies. These research papers aren't the kinds of things you read in a single setting and absorb instantly.

P.S.
quote:
Notice how I produce Peer reviewed data that's currant?
What do these small seedless grape like things have to do with anything??? Big Grin


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Melting sea ice or Antarctic ice shelves jutting into the ocean do not directly add to sea level rises.


Neither I nor the post claimed that. here's a quote

"Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland"

don't try to confuse the issue. Glaciers are on land and do contribute to ocean level rise. How much per year is in there as well

quote:
In summer, an increase in phytoplankton brought about by the greater light caused the Southern Ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than in colder months, he said.


correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it get warmer in Summer? this is normal

quote:
Check it out!!! a warmer ocean absorbs more CO2, therefore a warmer ocean is better!!


there you go making assumptions again,lets try to keep this to the facts

quote:
By the way. The article you produced in the above is not a peer reviewed research paper. 98% of the people wouldn't be able to understand a peer reviewed research article nor would they take the time to read it. The actual articles go into science and terms that the average person just doesn't understand


Results of the study are published in February's issue of Nature Geoscience.

so it's from peer reviewed research. if you have any proof that this link is misrepresenting the findings then post them and please no more personal opinions


I provide links to all my post to the peer reviewed data If anyone wants it and yes can understand it. You do not

that is my point. no opinions,no bloggs,no journalists opinions. if you have problems with the posts then post some real science that disputes it and provide the link to peer reviewed please


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
To avoid crossposting please check this link climate change as my thoughts there are more suited to this thread than the one they are in.

I would welcome feedback on the theory I have presented and if anyone can provide the links I apologise for not having, please do so.

I know my sources are questionable but I belive the basic facts not to be outright lies ie the order of timeline precedence of the graphs on solar activity, temp rise and CO2 rise. Also the very tiny percentage of manmade CO2 relative to the global CO2 system.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The human contribution to global warming has caused the natural cycle to speed up. The planet has seldom warmed up this fast before. So maybe it's happening 50 to 100 years sooner. Who cares, it's still gonna get a whole lot warmer, regardless of what humans do or don't do. The tipping point is long past, the tundra is melting and tens of thousands of years of trapped GHGs are being released, most of it H2O, the dominant GHG by far. There's four times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. The human contribution is measurable, but not significant in the planetary scope of things.

Unless there is a massive reduction in population, nothing will change except for the planet getting warmer, vast areas of Africa and parts of N.America going to desert, and sea level inexorably rising and inundating the coastal cities where large groups of densely populated humans live. This will likely reduce the world's population to sustainable levels before the melting of the polar ice caps slows or shuts down the gulf stream and other warm ocean currents and the planet continues it's natural warming/cooling cycle and cools toward another ice age. It's happened before many times and it's happening again.

There's only one rule on this planet: adapt or die. The present 'who/what causes global warming' debate will rage on while humans dither like pigs on ice waiting to see who the 'winner' is, and meanwhile doing little to adapt to the inevitable. The planet will survive the human virus because humans as a group are congenitally stupid.

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.
-- Voltaire

This isn't about me or you, but rather about the vast majority of stupid humans that overpopulate some regions of the planet and that most humans continue to pursue the seven deadly sins.

ENVY

SLOTH

GLUTTONY

WRATH

PRIDE

LUST

GREED

Smart people will learn to adapt to a changing world, the stupid ones won't. That's what Darwin referred to by 'survival of the fittest'. As long as the majority continue to be primarily motivated by greed, competition and the worship of money, then the status quo will be preserved, and the situation will get worse. The planet has means of dealing with overpopulation, not everyone is meant to survive.

If people in densely populated cities want to pollute themselves to death, it's just Darwin cleaning the shallow end of the gene pool. Parts of the planet will get better, many parts of the planet will get a whole lot worse. Those who were paying attention saw this coming 30 years ago.

Personally I don't much care what people in the polluted cities do. I've reduced my energy requirements to a fraction of what the average N.American uses, and most of it is supplied by renewable sources. Most of my food also comes from local sources.

I remain an optimist, people in my small part of the world will do just fine in a warming climate, while most of the world's population chokes on it's waste.

I'm not an arrogant pessimist, I'm an optimistic realist.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ant, to answer your questions as posted in the other thread. I do believe that the earth is warming. I, however, believe it is all part of the natural order of things as shown by past history. This link to the research paper has been posted elsewhere and is reposted here for convenience. Glacial Cycles and Astronomical Forcing. There is a great deal of research that shows CO2 is not the driving force in our climate.

I do find it funny though that people like Al Gore and the other alarmist predict increasing deserts and dry lands then without missing a beat tell us that there will be more storms with higher intensity. Which is it More Storms or drought? Can't really have both now.

I also have problems with the proxy data used to predict past temperatures. I believe that this data experiences a bit of data smoothing. I also believe it is difficult to put an exact temperature on anything using these methods. They are able to easily determine temperature and CO2 levels back 500,000 years. My questions are. How much water vapor was in the air? How hot was the sun? How much dirt (aka aerosols) were in the air? Where was earth in relation to the sun? If one knows anything about physics and the gravitational force they know that two objects exert a force on one another that is a function of the two masses, the distance squared, and some universal constant. Universal constants are used in science as a way to explain things that the equations have ignored or as a way to lump many parameters together. The effect of this is that the equations work over a finite set of data and will fall apart at the boundaries. At any rate, I take real issue with the statement "We have never seen a rise like this in recorded history". Key word here is recorded. You need to pay attention as these magicians spill forth their lecherous speech. They use many mirrors and much smoke to deceive and mislead. Recorded history is only about 150 years, prior to that we do not have the instrumentation nor means to determine with any accuracy how fast temperatures changed. As for the ice cores themselves, I have to believe that the weight of the ice above as an effect on the core itself. Also, while ice appears to be a solid it is actually slightly fluid. That is, over time some of those molecules will move around inside the ice. In fact, nothing in nature is 100% solid.

As for the Ozone. That was just another in a passing fad of alarmism. We had the impending ice age, acid rain, the hole in the ozone, global warming, and now climate change. I wonder what the next trendy environmental concern will be.

My thoughts on a greenhouse. During the day a greenhouse will amplify the suns energy and heat the interior of the structure, it works best with glass or translucent materials. However, when the sun goes away, the internal heat leaves just as quickly. Greenhouses are poor insulators.

This Wiki article talks very well to greenhouse gases (note, it is more than CO2 and water is the dominant greenhouse gas) Greenhouse gas You will find some good images with good explanations to the spectral absorption of the gases. Clicking on the pictures will give a bigger picture and a better explanation.

Hope this helps. If you have further questions I can point you to resources that will debunk many of the alarmist claims. I try to stick with the science myself.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Ant

quote:
Also the very tiny percentage of manmade CO2 relative to the global CO2 system.


For what it's worth you can check out this link. Ether believe it or not I'm not asking either.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Just look at it and bring back your questions

It's too hard to go over all our points at once,I find one point at a time is easier to do


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I, however, believe it is all part of the natural order of things as shown by past history.


The problem with that is that we predicted it within decades and it happened on time with the predictions. We can only place natural cycles within tens of thousands of years. This makes it possible but unlikely that it is a natural cycle alone. The relatively precise prediction is indicitive that something manmade really is going on.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 ... 59 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014