Scientists wrong on Greenhouse Warming, Again.

[varwoche]

Where's your evidence?

Come to think of it, have you provided a single fact that you haven't (by your own admission) pulled out of your rectum.

And yes, welcome to the forum. Try not to be so slow on the uptake next time.

 

[DeviousB]

Sorry, I was lurking on the CT thread all last week. I've become inured to it!

 

[Bruce]

DeviousB, welcome to the forum.

In keeping with a long-standing tradition at the JREF forum, I shall now declare:

I win this debate.

(It's best to just get that out of the way before CFLarsen shows up and kills the thread)

 

[DeviousB]

In keeping with a long-standing tradition at the JREF forum, I shall now declare:

Is this anything like 'declaring' in Cricket? Only, I thought you had to be in the lead to do that!

 

[Bruce]

Is this anything like 'declaring' in Cricket? Only, I thought you had to be in the lead to do that!

With that kind of attitude, you'll fit in quite well here.

 

[casebro]

Diddn't the latest definitive study, cited to PROVE GW, say that it is warmer now than it has been in 400 years? In other words,it was warmer than this 400 years ago? BUT, the study says, if they are off a bit, and it IS warmer now than 400 years ago, then it was DEFINITELY warmer than this 2000 years ago. Seems to me this study DISproves AGW, don't it? I mean, how much crude oil was I burning 400 years ago? How much coal was I burning to generate electricity 2,000 years ago?

Scipps Institute of Oceanography was involved in that study.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I read that the current temperatures are higher than they have been for the last six thousand years, and that archaeologists would be useful for telling us what the world would look like if the temperatures persisted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What would be required to actually do this, and what would be the cost? That's something climate scientists aren't actually well positioned to answer. But let me just point out one thing: the cost wouldn't just be in dollars, it would be in lives too. Not only is it difficult to figure out exactly what's happening with global warming, it's much more difficult to figure out what the propper response really is.

It seems to me that there is a need to work from both ends.

1. Reduce gross CO2 eimissions
2. Increase CO2 absorption capacity.

A step, among others.

Plant more trees, re forest harvested forests, and whoa, that whole Amazon Rain forest deal starts to pop up like a game of whackamole, likewise the Rain Forest in Africa deal.

DR

 

[politas]

4 (Dava)) Where on earth do you get the idea that recycling metal saves on petrol? To recycle the metal, you have to melt it down. Melting metal requires energy, which comes mostly from power plants that burn coal. How is melting metal any more energy efficient than smelting ore?

Because you don't have to mine it?

 

[Dava]

1) 4 (Dava)) Where on earth do you get the idea that recycling metal saves on petrol? To recycle the metal, you have to melt it down. Melting metal requires energy, which comes mostly from power plants that burn coal. How is melting metal any more energy efficient than smelting ore?

http://www.earth911.org/master.asp?s=lib&a=energy/EnergyFacts.html

According to the Reynolds Metal Company, recycled aluminum saves 95% energy vs. virgin aluminum. Smelting is not the only process in which energy is burned. There's the mining, refining, transporting, etc. That adds up significantly. It's much more efficient to reuse the metal that's already on hand.

 

[Badger]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/07/climate.change.reut/index.html

I can't wait to hunt Hadrosaur! Them's good eatin!

 

[Ceritus]

All good ideas, but there's practicality to consider. A lot of people live in apartments, and modifying the roofs of those is simply not an option. A lot of people can't afford to buy a new car just like that, even if it will save them money in the long run, paying for it in the short run is still too expensive.

Here's something that must be remembered. Payoff is meaningless if you can't afford initial investment.

That said, many people can afford it and it would be advisable for them to do such things.

One other thing: I've been meaning to switch to longer lasting easy on the energy bulbs myself, but I'll only cut back to a certain point. If it takes 30 seconds to fully start up, it's an annoyance . Fortunatly, I've seen decent ones that start up nearly as quickly as normal light bulbs so it's not like it's an all or nothing proposal here.

Good point. Anyone who wants to save the environment and has alot of money, give me some and I promise to buy a more efficient car I will also promise to buy a house and also promise to paint the roof white. If you give me enough money I'll even set up solar cells on my roof and will promise to deal with heating cooling problems as well as refrigeration problems on cloudy weeks. All in all I would be glad to change my habits for enough money.

 

[DeviousB]

Diddn't the latest definitive study, cited to PROVE GW, say that it is warmer now than it has been in 400 years? In other words,it was warmer than this 400 years ago?

I am older now than I have been for ten years, yet I was not older than I am now ten years ago.

 

[DeviousB]

Scipps Institute of Oceanography was involved in that study.

Are you perhaps referring to this (http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/climate.html)?

A National Academies study offers insight into climate debate, encourages more research
The National Academy of Sciences issued a report on June 22, 2006 stating that conclusive scientific evidence shows that the climate of the past several decades is the warmest that the Earth has experienced in 400 years. Climate data for years before 1600 become increasingly poor, thus making it impossible to conclude decisively that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in a millennium.
This report was issued in response to a long-standing conflict that began with the publication of a 1998 Nature article (392: 779 - 787) by M.E. Mann et al. The article used a variety of climate proxies to show an increase in global temperatures over the past 100 to 150 years, a period of time corresponding to global industrialization and increased emission of anthropogenic CO2. A key graph from the paper that shows a rise in temperature over time and is now referred to as the "hockey stick" graph was used several years later in the 2001 United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. The paper and the assessment gained the attention of prominent U.S. law-makers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joseph Barton (R - TX). Congressman Barton drafted letters to the IPCC, to NSF and to the authors of the study requesting additional information about the funding for the research, the methods and conclusions of the Nature article and about the process by which Dr. Mann's graph was included in the IPCC report.
In response to Mr. Barton's investigation, House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R - NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examine the evidence presented in the Nature paper and other papers and provide "expert guidance on the current scientific consensus of the paleoclimate record". The report found that several lines of evidence show with high confidence that the past few decades have been warmer than any comparable period in the past 400 years. Between 900 and 1600 A.D. the data is less conclusive, and beyond that, the report stated, the model is not reliable due to the scarcity of proxy data. The Academy noted that the collection of additional climate proxies, especially from the southern hemisphere, would increase the certainty of climate models.

The NAS report and press release can be found at:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
House Science Committee coverage of the letters and the NAS report are available at:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/climate%20dispute/index.htm

 

[casebro]

"A National Academies study offers insight into climate debate, encourages more research
The National Academy of Sciences issued a report on June 22, 2006 stating that conclusive scientific evidence shows that the climate of the past several decades is the warmest that the Earth has experienced in 400 years. Climate data for years before 1600 become increasingly poor, thus making it impossible to conclude decisively that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in a millennium."

So, all we and all the climatologists in the world REALLY know, and all we CAN possibly know at this point in time, is that it's 1/2 degree warmer now than it was 150 years ago. PERIOD.

So the use tree ring data, sediment data, ice core data, glacier data, sea level data, sea temp data, are all limited to a very short time span. A mere blink in the cosmic eye of climate. Especially when you consider that what we are discussing is the ramifications of a 1/2 degree temperature rise in a system that has a normal varitaion of what 200 degrees? (Alaska winter to Death Valley summer) Thats a 'trend' of .0025...

Ocam would say, social/political power are much larger than the scientific data supports.

 

[bigdoggy]

No point saving gas

While it might reduce the smog and save you a little cash (in tax) there is no point saving gas to help cut carbon emissions. This is because all of the gas in the world WILL be burned eventually and released into the atmosphere, it'll just take ever so slightly longer if we all save a bit. The replacement fuels (biofuels and renewables) are shelved until we have bought all the gas. They wont sell you the new stuff while they can make you buy the old stuff. You're supposed to be cynics, remember.

 

[a_unique_person]

"A National Academies study offers insight into climate debate, encourages more research
The National Academy of Sciences issued a report on June 22, 2006 stating that conclusive scientific evidence shows that the climate of the past several decades is the warmest that the Earth has experienced in 400 years. Climate data for years before 1600 become increasingly poor, thus making it impossible to conclude decisively that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in a millennium."

So, all we and all the climatologists in the world REALLY know, and all we CAN possibly know at this point in time, is that it's 1/2 degree warmer now than it was 150 years ago. PERIOD.

So the use tree ring data, sediment data, ice core data, glacier data, sea level data, sea temp data, are all limited to a very short time span. A mere blink in the cosmic eye of climate. Especially when you consider that what we are discussing is the ramifications of a 1/2 degree temperature rise in a system that has a normal varitaion of what 200 degrees? (Alaska winter to Death Valley summer) Thats a 'trend' of .0025...

Ocam would say, social/political power are much larger than the scientific data supports.

It's enought to already be affecting life on the planet. Species are migrating to cooler climates. Those 'trapped' on mountains won't be able to move and will die. Many won't be able to move past man's cities and farms. The oceans will become more acidic, with huge effects on eco-systems.

In geological terms, it's a massive spike.

 

[Bruce]

there is no point saving gas to help cut carbon emissions. This is because all of the gas in the world WILL be burned eventually

I don't bathe. Why should I? I WILL get dirty again anyway.

 

[YoPopa]

While it might reduce the smog and save you a little cash (in tax) there is no point saving gas to help cut carbon emissions. This is because all of the gas in the world WILL be burned eventually and released into the atmosphere, it'll just take ever so slightly longer if we all save a bit. The replacement fuels (biofuels and renewables) are shelved until we have bought all the gas. They wont sell you the new stuff while they can make you buy the old stuff. You're supposed to be cynics, remember.

There's nothing stopping you from selling us the new stuff is there?

We aren't trying to be cynics, we think of ourselves as skeptics.

But I do tend to agree in one respect. It doesn't make much difference if we save a little petroleum. Oil is a fungible commodity. If demand in one country goes down it lowers the worldwide price of fuel and another country will gladly buy up the slack at the lower price. China would love to be the last country to be burning oil.

While we all don our hair shirts they will be relaxing pool side in silks.

 

[bigdoggy]

I don't bathe. Why should I? I WILL get dirty again anyway.

You're missing the point Bruce. Mineral oil is not renewable and when it's all burned that's it. When it is all burned the oil companies will start selling us biofuels, which eat up the carbon they produce by growing again. This will effectively be zero emission fuel since the new plants will use up what the previous plants put into the atmosphere.
It's not like getting dirty and washing, only to get dirty again. That's simple maintenence.
And Yopapa, I don't have any to sell otherwise I would. BP already produce biofuels which would greenly run cars and aeroplanes, but if they sell you that what will they do with all that valuable petroleum?
And sorry, I meant skeptic rather than cynic, especially since the original Skeptics believed that true knowledge was impossible to achieve.