Global Warming

[stefan]

Sorry, I would have a hard time believing anything said, written, produced, or endorsed by the man that 'invented the internet'.

i wasn't originally gonna comment on this, but what the heck.

you are aware of the fact that gore never said he invented the internet. his exact quote was "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet." now you may argue that he was embroidering his role in this achievement, but there is an element of truth to his statement here. his comment was later changed to "invented" to make the ambiguity less obvious.

gotta love the media

[Sombeech]

[Mtnman1830]

This is my 2 cents...
When things get warmer, they expand.
With continuing climbing temps, the earth will get bigger
then the place wont be so crowded.

[Scott P]

With continuing climbing temps, the earth will get bigger
then the place wont be so crowded.

You forgot that Americans in general are getting fatter as well. The average American is getting fatter at a higher rate than the earth is expanding, leaving less room.

[Wasatch Rebel]

Back to the global warming original topic. A great new book has come out with page after page of footnotes dedicated to disproving the trendy "Global Warming" theory. It's called "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years". Here's the link: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...04471126&EDATE

[stefan]

yes fred singer is one of the most vocal, credentialed opponents to man-induced global warming. he also is a strong believer in the insignificance of CFCs to ozone depletion, for which there is more or less the opposite consensus amongst scientists ... also questions effects of second hand smoke, and has consulted with phillip morris.

science is tough ... it's always a mystery, putting together pieces of the puzzle with evidence ... what you find more often than not in science, is folks pushing one perspective over the other. it could be that both play a role, but the argument is clearer and simpler to focus only one ... hence the typical powerplay.

but one thing i disagree with his approach ... he suggests that carbon emissions will not induce an effect, and has consulted with oil companies along such lines. this may not be true ... whether or not his theory is right ... whether or not global warming is directly connected to atmospheric carbon, surely massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere can have dramatic effects regardless.

[billh]

Dude, for the thread starter the animated Gore image is a bit over the top...

and actually while there are points in the presentation i might contest it is a good start and you might learn something if you watched it, on the other hand, maybe you know all there is to know, i certainly don't.

[Wasatch Rebel]

but one thing i disagree with his approach ... he suggests that carbon emissions will not induce an effect, and has consulted with oil companies along such lines. this may not be true ... whether or not his theory is right ... whether or not global warming is directly connected to atmospheric carbon, surely massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere can have dramatic effects regardless.

His research shows that the heating precedes the CO2 increase, in other words, the warming causes the CO2--most likely through an increase of CO2 emitting algae in the oceans.

[stefan]

His research shows that the heating precedes the CO2 increase, in other words, the warming causes the CO2--most likely through an increase of CO2 emitting algae in the oceans.

i understand what he is suggesting ... however i am speaking about the carbon generated by humans. this is an extraordinary amount over a very short period of time ... many have calculated estimates of this and it is by no means small. he downplays this aspect a great deal, often dismissing it as negligible ... and furthermore continually touts how beneficial to life (and the pursuit of happiness) a warmer climate will be, as it has been in the geologic past.

it's not negligible and the increasing rate of emission will push it very far from negligible.

i dunno ... maybe i need his book to understand .... maybe you can explain it if he goes in more detail but how does he look at this image and say that human carbon output is negligible?




Data Sources

1. (blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
2. (green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
3. (red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4. (cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. L

[Wasatch Rebel]

First of all, you should read the book. His citations include research from scientists all over the world, not his own research alone. Secondly, one of the things he mentions is that the polar caps have actually gone down significantly temperature-wise in the past century--except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which because it is the only place near the poles that supports Greenhouse theory, is the only place advocates of that theory measure. I'm only maybe a quarter through the book, and don't have it memorized by any means, but a lot of things have jumped out at me as being pure speculation on the part of the Greenhouse theorists.

But here's part of it---over time as these natural sun-caused heating cycles occur, vast amounts of C02 are emitted as microscopic ocean life reproduces and multiply. Thus the lag of CO2 emissions post warming trend. However, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to vast increases of plant life in the past periods of warming. At least, that's how I remember it from the book.

The bottom-line to my way of thinking is that it's far less threatening than we are being led to believe. Sure, we should take care of the environment, but not at all costs. Sure there are polluters that need controlling, but unfortunately most of those are in third-world to second-world countries that are just developing now--countries like China. Not very likely that they'll agree to cut back production anytime soon.

[Wasatch Rebel]

Some more discussion on the topic: http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

[stefan]

But here's part of it---over time as these natural sun-caused heating cycles occur, vast amounts of C02 are emitted as microscopic ocean life reproduces and multiply. Thus the lag of CO2 emissions post warming trend.

okay but in the graph you see the trend and the trend over the past. the question i am asking is how does he dismiss the "apparent" largest CO2 concentration AND concentration change which just so happens to occur (during the past 400,000) coincidentally with the post-industrial revolution?

However, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has led to vast increases of plant life in the past periods of warming. At least, that's how I remember it from the book.

uh huh ... what they aren't is experts in understanding precisely what will happen. i wouldn't be so cavalier as he seems to be. he is only guessing at how things will change and how easily it will be for us to adapt. this is the part where i take it with a very small grain of salt.

The bottom-line to my way of thinking is that it's far less threatening than we are being led to believe.

yeah, well it all depends. IF there is already a considerable increase in carbon, and the graph shown above is correct, and that considerable increase of carbon IS credited to us, then we really do not know and his theory MAY NOT be applicable to the current trend. moreover what will be the effect of our continued increase. he casually dismisses this aspect. i would like to read what aspect of the book address this increase in carbon, how it is insignificant.

the point is the graph demonstrates something unprecedented over the past 400,000 years ... yet his theory is based upon this past. if the graph is somehow wrong, misrepresenting the past for whatever reason, then that's one thing, but if it's accurate?

if he tries to claim that the causal relationship is temperature increase followed by carbon increase, then he doesn't know what will happen if we push carbon concentration well beyond what apparently is the natural cycle maxima over the past 400,000 years. how does he address this fact, why should he dismiss it?

yes i know read the book. i'd prefer to read papers and not pay for his book.

what i completely disagree with is anyone who tells you increasing carbon can only be beneficial to life and can stabiliize the atmosphere. speculation. complete speculation. we don't know this and i would put my trust in it either. equally i would agree with the fact that the greenhouse proponents don't precisely know what will happen either. hence my stance is that i would prefer not to push the system and find out ... that is, ii'd prefer that we didn't treat the situation as a grand science experiment.

[Sombeech]

I'm starting to hear that the earth is actually beginning to cool a little bit. It's been warming for the last few decades, but future projections show that it's cooling.

[stefan]

I'm starting to hear that the earth is actually beginning to cool a little bit. It's been warming for the last few decades, but future projections show that it's cooling.

well when it comes down to it i am a selfish bastard ... i am only jumping on the bandwagon to ensure good skiing in the future





in all seriousness though, you're gonna hear a lot of things, we've been hearing a lot of things, it's about which studies one wants to pay attention to.

regardless, we do really have a concern with the amount of carbon we output and the truly unknown consequences of doing so.

[stefan]

First of all, you should read the book. His citations include research from scientists all over the world, not his own research alone.

so i as i mentioned in thread on the documentary, Fred Singer has hardly published anything as far as hard reasearch goes in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 23 years.

the documentary gave me the inkling to check on this. he's published a lot of critical commentary pieces, virtually no hard research. in 2004 he published two papers with 2 other authors on computer models and temperature discrepancies. others have disagreed with his interpretation of these data. scientist look very critically on how much a researcher publishes. through peer review of this work one becomes an expert.

as he has published virtually nothing in the field as far as hard science and since he is not regarded within the field as an expert, i really don't know how much credibility one should necessarily attribute to him.

my guess is that if his book cites tons of other research to some degree its contents will be scruitinzed. but when it comes to the science world, fundamental research is not first published in books, it's published in peer reviewed journal articles. i would be highly skeptical what you read.

ask lots of questions. look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

[Wasatch Rebel]

look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

And the same can be said about greenhouse theorists. Check this out Stefan.

Here is a paper on the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon dioxide: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is a list (see left column signers) of over 17,000 scientists who have signed a petition refuting the current global warming theory as expressed in the Kyoto Protocol: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. More than 2600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials.

[billh]

look at what he cites and what he leaves out that others cite. just like a good lawyer, one can weave nice theoretical stories with a constellation of scientific evidence.

And the same can be said about greenhouse theorists. Check this out Stefan.

Here is a paper on the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon dioxide: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Here is a list (see left column signers) of over 17,000 scientists who have signed a petition refuting the current global warming theory as expressed in the Kyoto Protocol: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. More than 2600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials.

While you were/are doing your homework, I'm sure you must have been carefully through this set of information about the topic:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm

I think i might well purchase a carbon offset for you. Rather than this poll, a more interesting take is what is happening on the various organized markets for cabon exchange. Whenever faced with public goods questions there are those that will always choose to freeride. In this instance it is the whole country. Maybe things will begin to change in the new federal policy making environment.

[Wasatch Rebel]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm[/url]

I think i might well purchase a carbon offset for you. Rather than this poll, a more interesting take is what is happening on the various organized markets for cabon exchange. Whenever faced with public goods questions there are those that will always choose to freeride. In this instance it is the whole country. Maybe things will begin to change in the new federal policy making environment.

Singer definitely takes up the IPCC 2001 report in his book. Rather than bore you with more quotes and links, I'll just end my takes with this thought. We need to protect the planet to a large degree. That degree is determinable by the effect it has on the jobs of people, and quantifiable proof that the earth is being destroyed. Find that proof with incontrovertible evidence and you've sold me. Otherwise, I'll continue to agree with Fred Singer's compilation of research.

[billh]

Singer definitely takes up the IPCC 2001 report in his book. Rather than bore you with more quotes and links, I'll just end my takes with this thought. We need to protect the planet to a large degree. That degree is determinable by the effect it has on the jobs of people, and quantifiable proof that the earth is being destroyed. Find that proof with incontrovertible evidence and you've sold me. Otherwise, I'll continue to agree with Fred Singer's compilation of research.

Must admit that i have not been through his book and i'm sure he must have convinced you with irrefutable evidence to support the testable hypotheses that must have been developed. Certainly difficult in this realm to get to the deductive logic that "proof" requires. Me, i'm inductive by the necessity of circumstance and unfortunately must draw conclusions in terms of probability and inference. Thus when we formulate the null hypothesis (hope you had a statistics course at some point) that global warming is a figment of the liberal imagination (no global warming) versus the alternative that it is not (the earth is heating up) and then based on an information set fail to reject the null...we are either correct or have made a type II error and what is the consequence of the type II error? If we think that there is sufficient evidence to reject the null then we are either correct or we have made a type I error and what are the consequences here? When i think about the consequences of concluding no global warming versus those from rejecting the null i think i would rather see an error on the latter side. I am reminded here of the clip from an inconvenient truth where on one side of the balance is the earth and on the other side are bars of gold. What to choose? Hmmmmmm. I think that you might be surprised by the "jobs for people" that would be generated by rejecting the null hypothesis (concluding that global warming is an issue).

[Wasatch Rebel]

Well, that's interesting Bill. Neither I nor Singer has ever argued that there is no global warming, just the causes of it.