Author Topic: Global Warming: In Practical Terms  (Read 21091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2008, 03:22:22 PM »
That was great TVDOC. Thanks!
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle

Offline The Night Owl

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Reputation: +22/-5102
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2008, 03:00:01 PM »
I, for one would likely concede the issue that some warming is occurring, seems to me that one degree Celsius  since the beginning of the 20th century has been discussed.  However, the data collected earlier than the advent of temperature measurements via wide-area satellite infrared spectronomy is suspect from the perspective of accuracy.  Until this technology was initiated, measurements were largely subjective, and as we are dealing with fractional increments of a degree over decades, I cannot accept that the data recorded (with mercury column thermometers) in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries are particularly convincing scientifically, when we are discussing such small changes, over relatively long periods of time.

You might be a little bit behind the curve on climate science. The temperature data scientists are using to model climate is not derived from historical notes in books but rather from a variety of sources such as...

Radiosondes- http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
Borehole analysis- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Proxy reconstructions- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Permafrost melt- http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html
Satellite measurements- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Quote
The real danger occues when I hear supposed "men of science" stating that "the debate over AGW is over", and calling all dissenters essentially heretics.  Hell, in my area of physics, we are STILL debating many of Einstein's findings, and occasionally we will discuss the nuances of "Newtonian physics" (who, by the way, was wrong in a number of areas, after being held as a minor diety in physical science for nearly a century)....

The debate in real science is NEVER over.......

So, you acknowledge that the theory that mankind is the main source of global warming might be right?

Quote
.......The earth may, in fact, be warming slightly, as it has countless times in the past.....

That the Earth is warming is science fact.

Quote
There is NO convincing evidence that this warming is the result of any human activity, in fact, temperature measurements more than fifty years old would not meet any sort of scientific accuracy test vis-a-vis establishment of a "global mean temperature" for that era......therefore any and all "computer models" based on such data are fatally flawed, and not to be considered valid for policy-making purposes.

Huh? I thought you said that the debate is never over?

Anyway, the most celebrated scientific institutions in the world say you're probably wrong about climate change, so I hope you won't be offended if I go with their opinions.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 03:29:55 PM by The Night Owl »
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2008, 03:19:42 PM »

Anyway, the most celebrated scientific institutions in the world say you're probably wrong about climate change, so I hope you won't be offended if I go with their opinions.


Not with my ****ing wallet and liberty you won't.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2008, 03:53:47 PM »
TNO....I grow weary of you offering the same tired arguments that remain as fallacious now as they were in the beginning.  The definition of insanity (liberalism paraphrased) is repeating the same stuff over and over, expecting different results.

The bottom line is that your arguments and supporting data are agenda motivated, and largely junk science......for someone that writes in an intelligent manner, such as you do, I find it perplexing that you seem incapable of grasping such a non-nuanced rebuttal.  You seem to think that quoting me out of context and putting words in my mouth are successful discussion tactics.

I simply find it a waste of time to continue a discussion with a person that thinks establishing a mean global temperature by means of analyzing ice and sedimentary core samples (which couldn't establish any conclusion within a +/- 5 Degree Celsius optimally),  among other methods, as accurate enough to drive a historical conclusion for determining anything substantive.  The scientific method REQUIRES that if the underlying data cannot be precisely correlated over the subject period, your result will simply be an "assumption", not a conclusion......a true scientist can simply NOT "mix and match" the sources of their data and arrive at anything meaningful........which is why the entire AGW discussion is specious, because in order to even ARRIVE at such a conclusion (as AGW), you are required to mix and match the source of the data.

Let me spell it out for you in a manner that even an idiot could understand........when you come to me with a data set that has been determined over time using the same methodology (preferably satellite infrared spectronomy, which is hyper accurate)....and this data suggests that the global "average" temperature is rising......THEN I WILL LISTEN TO YOU!!  However when you present me with "studies" that are based on data which are arrived at by DOZENS of different sampling methods, and ask me to support a conclusion based on said data,  I will simply mock both you and your sources.

You seem to have a "thirst for knowledge" in the area of science, so my suggestion would be that you actually STUDY some science academically (instead of on the internet), then actually go out and DO some scientific research (as I have), and after a while you might grasp the reason why AGW is essentially bull feces.

To summarize this entire exchange for you.......I'm not attacking all of your proffered "studies" and "environmental research"....I'm simply stating that because the underlying data cannot be correlated, the results are "assumptions", not "theories", or "facts" or even "conclusions".....and no intelligent person would base public policy on an assumption.

Until then, I'll let you annoy someone else.....

PS  Wikipedia is not a credible source

doc
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 04:37:42 PM by TVDOC »

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2008, 04:07:56 PM »

He believes in globalwarming but not Jesus Christ.   :loser:


I believe that Jesus Christ existed. I don't believe that he was a divine being.

We have no scientific evidence that Christ was divine. We have a lot of scientific evidence that global warming is the result of human activities.
So if you can't prove it through "science", it must be false?   And yes, we've already discussed and busted your "scientific evidence". 
Still waiting for all that unbiased proof that gw is man's fault.
Gonna be a looooong wait.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline djones520

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +181/-146
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #80 on: February 01, 2008, 04:30:46 PM »
Quote
Exellent questions.

Okay... First, the resolution of the chart you posted makes reading it a little bit difficult. I think you're misreading where on the chart the really massive increase in CO2 takes place. Please take some time to view a blow up of the chart...

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

As you can see on the chart, the really massive increase in CO2, as represented by the vertical red line, takes place at 0, which is basically the past few decades.

The following chart gives us more detail about CO2 levels in the past 10,000 years..

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

As you can see on the chart, CO2 levels have been pretty steady for the past 10,000 years and start to rise sharply about 100 years ago- at the start of the industrial revolution.

How do we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is ours? By using a process similar to carbon dating, scientists have been able to differentiate between CO2 which results from the burning of fossil fuels and natural CO2. A detailed explanation of how we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels can be found in a post at Real Climate...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

You know the CO2 estimates used by the global warming alarmists are most likely wrong?  I'm referring to the pre-industrial age estimates of 280PPM.

Quote
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at record highs according to a new report from the UN’s World Meteorological Organization. The implication is that manmade greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, global warming, are spiraling out of control.

But the report is misleading to the extent it claims that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level – reported by the WMO to be 377 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – is 35 percent higher now than during pre-industrial times when the CO2 level allegedly was around 280 ppm.

While there’s no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the WMO’s 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.

Global warming alarmists, however, prefer to estimate pre-industrial CO2 indirectly by means of ice cores, from which they derive the much lower pre-industrial revolution estimate of 280 ppm. The lower estimate makes industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions appear to be dramatically higher.

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.

First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.

The official “rationale” for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated” by the contemporary atmosphere –­ but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.

In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).

“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,” Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.

The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.

“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,” Dr. Jaworowski testified.

If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.

Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

There really are only two certainties in the debate over climate change. First, we really don’t have a sufficient understanding of climatic processes to predict with reasonable certainty the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate.

But we do know that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions – like those required in Europe by the Kyoto Protocol and currently advocated in the U.S. by Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingman, D-N.M., – will harm the economy by making energy more expensive and less available.

European nations are already choosing to forego global warming alarmism and compliance with Kyoto in favor of economic survival and growth. Let’s hope that message gets through the global warming ice core in which Sens. Domenici and Bingaman seem to be trapped.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html

Media source or not, the story is still factual.  But basically, if the average is closer to 335ppm then 280, that would mean the rise in the last century would be negligible.

That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used.  Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable.  As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 04:36:36 PM by djones520 »
"Chuck Norris once had sex in an 18 wheeler. Some of his semen dripped onto the engine. We now call that truck Optimus Prime."

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2008, 04:48:12 PM »

That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used.  Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable.  As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.

This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days......the only data that can be used to support the concept of AGW is tainted, and of questionable use in arriving at any meaningful conclusions....

And since there is no absolute data.......there can never be a conclusion.......

doc
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline The Night Owl

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Reputation: +22/-5102
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2008, 05:11:18 PM »
Quote from: TVDOC
I simply find it a waste of time to continue a discussion with a person that thinks establishing a mean global temperature by means of analyzing ice and sedimentary core samples (which couldn't establish any conclusion within a +/- 5 Degree Celsius optimally),  among other methods, as accurate enough to drive a historical conclusion for determining anything substantive.  The scientific method REQUIRES that if the underlying data cannot be precisely correlated over the subject period, your result will simply be an "assumption", not a conclusion......a true scientist can simply NOT "mix and match" the sources of their data and arrive at anything meaningful........which is why the entire AGW discussion is specious, because in order to even ARRIVE at such a conclusion (as AGW), you are required to mix and match the source of the data.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists who are studying global warming are trying to do. Scientists are not trying to establish an absolute record of temperatures. They are trying to identify trends in the climate record. The kind of accuracy provided by satellite readings is nice but is not required to build an accurate reconstruction of climate spanning decades or centuries.

Quote
However when you present me with "studies" that are based on data which are arrived at by DOZENS of different sampling methods, and ask me to support a conclusion based on said data,  I will simply mock both you and your sources.

The fact that scientists using various methods and various sources for data are getting the same results should give you confidence in their conclusions, not doubt. Analyzing data from a variety of sources allows scientists to cross check their conclusions. When constructing a climate record spanning centuries, more data is better than less data.

Quote
You seem to have a "thirst for knowledge" in the area of science, so my suggestion would be that you actually STUDY some science academically (instead of on the internet), then actually go out and DO some scientific research (as I have), and after a while you might grasp the reason why AGW is essentially bull feces.

No offense, but... considering that you were, until I got here, under the impression that climate reconstructions are based on thermometer readings taken in the past, I would say that you have more reading to do than I do.

Anyway, our opinions on global warming are irrelevant. We can dismiss each other's opinions all day, but what we cannot dismiss are the opinions of highly respected scientific institutions which have studied global warming and which have come to the conclusion that it is largely the result of human activities.

When you dismiss the idea that global warming is caused by human activities as bullshit, you are doing exactly what you claim zealots on the other side of the argument are doing.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 05:14:46 PM by The Night Owl »
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas

Offline The Night Owl

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Reputation: +22/-5102
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2008, 05:13:38 PM »
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...

So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?

:whatever:
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #84 on: February 01, 2008, 05:17:46 PM »
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...

So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?

:whatever:
No, just a numbskull.  And a ****ing socialist.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Atomic Lib Smasher

  • Liberal Hunter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Reputation: +165/-16
  • Just Say Nobama
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #85 on: February 01, 2008, 05:20:19 PM »
This is exactly what I've been attempting to get across to this numbskull TNO for the past two days...

So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?

:whatever:


If you're the same TNO from Liberal Loser's group.... you're also a creppy ass ****tard. Here, from what ya displayed so far on Global warming (more like Global Whining), either a sucker or a flat out liar.


Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid! - Mark R. Levin

Offline The Night Owl

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Reputation: +22/-5102
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #86 on: February 01, 2008, 05:56:47 PM »
Media source or not, the story is still factual.  But basically, if the average is closer to 335ppm then 280, that would mean the rise in the last century would be negligible.

That is why the Hockey Stick graph has been debunked and cannot be used.  Because the numbers just simply aren't reliable.  As much as people may scream that there is, there really is no solid proof yet that there has been a massive rise in CO2 levels over the last 100 years.

Zbigniew Jaworowski is a physicist whose claims about ice core samples and climate change are not taken seriously by the scientific community. His three most recent papers have been published in 21st Century Science and Technology, a magazine owned by Lyndon LaRouche, who is a crackpot and a convict. I don't think I need to tell anyone that Lyndon LaRouche's publications and websites are not prestigious places for scientific papers to end up in.

A funny story about Jaworowski... Jaworowski believes that ice core samples show that an ice age is imminent. But, when he was challenged to put money on his prediction, he declined. Enough said.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #87 on: February 02, 2008, 12:52:14 PM »
So, now I'm a numbskull. What will I be next? A heretic?

:whatever:

OK....Let's assume for sake of discussion that these "assumptions/conclusions" that all of your "unbiased scientists" have postulated are correct......(which I don't)......precisely what steps should governments and citizens take......and exactly to what extent......as a result of acceptance of AGW.

I will reject any condescending generalizations from you, so please give me the exact steps that first the US government should take, in your own preferred order, followed by the exact actions that we, as citizens, should take.  each step should include a brief cost/value analysis, and a penalty caveat if you think one necessary.

I would like to truly see your evaluation of what actions and costs, in real dollars, that you would be willing to foist on we citizens as a result of all of this "overwhelming scientific evidence".....

We'll see how much of a heretic you actually are, and if you have the courage to apply "cost" to your convictions.....I suspect that you will dodge the question....

I'm waiting.......



doc
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Global Warming: In Practical Terms
« Reply #88 on: February 02, 2008, 01:09:42 PM »

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists who are studying global warming are trying to do. Scientists are not trying to establish an absolute record of temperatures. They are trying to identify trends in the climate record. The kind of accuracy provided by satellite readings is nice but is not required to build an accurate reconstruction of climate spanning decades or centuries.


Actually I know exactly what they are trying to do......use pseudoscience to accomplish the political goals of their masters....you could see it as well if you simply "followed the money"...

Oh, and if you are as astute a student of this discussion as you purport yourself to be, you know that in the beginning of this "quest for evidence" these self same scientists were making these ridiculous claims on the basis of "thermometer readings".....at least they were until it was suggested that they couldn't get away with it.  So they continue to thrash away in the "search" to find new and better ways to support their predetermined conclusion....

And in actuality, my dismissal of AGW as bullshit, is based on simple logic and scientific method.....unlike your doomshouters and snake-oil salesmen, masquerading as "scientists"....

doc

If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.