a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The funny thing is, by making such accusations, it says much more about why they take their attitude than anything else they say.
Global warming
- Thread starter oglommi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- global warming
The funny thing is, by making such accusations, it says much more about why they take their attitude than anything else they say.
So in discussing what is admittedly a incorrect accusation (that all AGW people are liberals) you infer that all creationists are conservative and therefore making red states? How hypocritical.
I still really think that "deniers" is a horrible word to use for someone who doesn't believe in AGW because it automatically implies that something is true and we are denying the truth rather than just being skeptical about something which we see as not having enough solid evidence.
And as I've said before, the comparison to evolution vs. creationism is silly, let's not go back on that train of discussion because it just leads nowhere.
P.S. Sorry for no responses lately... time has been very tight this week
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Except that melting sea ice won't raise sea level...
Pipirr, I think he meant liberal Alarmist, which would imply say a rosy outlook on a big government "solution". That does not mean that AGW is a liberal agenda item, but that certain "solutions" are. A conservative might say Kyoto was a boondoggle, the facts are in on that, lets move on.
Its disturbing when the same people who want that "solution" are not inclined to consider negative evidence as to its feasibility or cost effectiveness, offhand the published work of Armstrong and Nordhaus come to mind. Or when people ignore the failure of "mini" Kyoto and want "maxi" Kyoto.
Then there are ignored alternative evidence and explanations...
Huge haze clouds over the Indian Ocean contribute as much to atmospheric warming in Asia as greenhouse gases and play a significant role in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, according to a study published Thursday.
Unmanned measuring devices were sent into the haze pollution, known as Atmospheric Brown Clouds, over the Indian Ocean in March 2006 near the island of Hanimadhoo to measure aerosol concentrations, soot levels and solar radiation.
Researchers concluded that the pollution — mostly caused by the burning of wood and plant matter for cooking in India and other South Asian countries — enhanced heating of the atmosphere by around 50 percent and contributed to about half of the temperature increases blamed in recent decades for the glacial retreat.
What if big, world wide government programs solved the wrong problem, one that was not even a problem? Want a history of such things having occurred?Unmanned measuring devices were sent into the haze pollution, known as Atmospheric Brown Clouds, over the Indian Ocean in March 2006 near the island of Hanimadhoo to measure aerosol concentrations, soot levels and solar radiation.
Researchers concluded that the pollution — mostly caused by the burning of wood and plant matter for cooking in India and other South Asian countries — enhanced heating of the atmosphere by around 50 percent and contributed to about half of the temperature increases blamed in recent decades for the glacial retreat.
Articulett, you have to knocked down the Denier strawman, but left the AGW Truther careening forward in a frenzy, shrieking never ending repeated
apocalyptic calls of the Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom.
Surely misinformation does not move the state of scientific understanding forward.
Look at a few comments - sincere but misinformed and misguided - from Realclimate.
- the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW, for a one year test run. To see if we can survive without these co2 machines……the UN should declare a global emergency NOW and ask all member nations to stop all vehicular and plane traffic NOW.
- closer to home, you will see a permanent dustbowel begin to form in the US Southwest - and another begin to form in the US Southeast.
- Several meters by the end of the century seems quite possible, given the various feedbacks. Five meters isn’t entirely out of the question - either in terms of the dynamics (e.g., positive feedback between Greenland and the West Antarctic Peninsula) or the paleoclimate record.
- Massive uncontrollable forest fires might be another consequence in places like Colorado.
- Turning to James Hansen’s latest pieces (the technical piece, and the non technical piece in New Scientist) 40% or more of Florida could be under water by 2100,
- The world is warming - is there any room left to dispute that? The warming is causing mega-changes in climate and weather patterns - can this, either, be disputed?
- the cover page of the Newsweek article on oil, coal, gas and transportation industry funding of deniers and the responses to it are amusing and indicative of what is going on politically and why.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Rubbish it was a boondoggle. Kyoto was about preparing for a global solution by setting up a prototype with the Western nations, who create most of the anthropogenic CO2. The next stage was supposed to be happening soon, when the mechanism would be humming along and we could get real changes made. That whole idea was neatly sabotaged.
Mini Kyoto did not fail because of Kyoto, it failed because of short sighted self interest.
If you read the summary, it says.
I don't know where you get the idea it causes warming. I was over in Thailand recently, and at midday the sun is a cool, red orb. That haze is causing cooling, as the quote says. It is also causing unusual extra rainfall in the North West of Australia.
What if the science is correct? Risk management. What are the odds the scientists are completely wrong?
You want to take the risks? Do you feel lucky, punk?
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Newton as a genius, and he also believed the most weird religious mumbo jumbo. A very interesting man. His work on science and mathematics, however, was brilliant.
It is not a fringe alarmist view, and he didn't choose to personify it. He just happened to have the means and will to do so.
It's not spin, it's possibilities, and I would be surprised if all the worst case scenariors happened, or if things even turned out worse. It's a matter of risk management.
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Self interest? Let's see ... New Zealand going Kyoto, thinking they would be the beneficiary of carbon transfer dollars, then finding out that it would cost them? Want to discuss Canada? Europe? Finland? China? Indonesia?
How about Australia? How are you guys doing a la Kyoto? Just state the numbers, please. Any plans to sequester carbon from your famous coal powerplants? Any plans of substance to comply with Kyoto down under, or just rhetoric? Nuclear plants? Any substantial projects at all? Please provide projected numbers in terms of how your country forecasts reaching any reduction in CO2 emissions.
Self interest? A lot of the signers to Kyoto were to get to suck on that big cash cow of transfer dollars in carbon credits from developed nations. So your agreement - Kyoto - was voted and passed on based on self interest of the nations.
And you argue that it failed due to self interest?
Translation - Ignore scientific evidence, actual risk analysis, published studies on the economic impacts by economists, and reduce to a emotional appeals and insults.
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Newton wrote in 1704 (in an attempt to extract scientific information from the Bible) that his estimate was the world would end no earlier than 2060.
In predicting this he said,
"This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."[1]
Let's agree to stop "the rash conjectures of fanciful men" today, who in frequently predicting or agreeing with AGW Truthers Ten Year Sliding Forecast of Doom, discredit otherwise reputable science and scientists.
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
You are absolutely right. For AGW'rs "denier" is no name calling, but they make a loud noise about "walarmist".
They tend to believe that they are right on science, but ignore completely studies who cast doubts about their beliefs, and no one commented the recent study showing there is no consensus (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...limate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html)
They also ignore completely other peer reviewed studies posted here before. The only comment you can get is "the russians benefit from carbon".
They have elevated the "paid by Exxon" to the category of definitive counter argument to end any discussion.
They have made the "precautionary principle" (now called "risk management" :d) the central argument to end any dicussion related to Kyoto (wich they admit won't do anything to solve the alleged problem) and converting it to a sort of religion wich should be followed at all costs. Read the "Do you feel lucky, punk?" message and compare to Pascal's wager......
They tend to believe that they are right on science, but ignore completely studies who cast doubts about their beliefs, and no one commented the recent study showing there is no consensus (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...limate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html)
They also ignore completely other peer reviewed studies posted here before. The only comment you can get is "the russians benefit from carbon".
They have elevated the "paid by Exxon" to the category of definitive counter argument to end any discussion.
They have made the "precautionary principle" (now called "risk management" :d) the central argument to end any dicussion related to Kyoto (wich they admit won't do anything to solve the alleged problem) and converting it to a sort of religion wich should be followed at all costs. Read the "Do you feel lucky, punk?" message and compare to Pascal's wager......
So in discussing what is admittedly a incorrect accusation (that all AGW people are liberals) you infer that all creationists are conservative and therefore making red states? How hypocritical.
I still really think that "deniers" is a horrible word to use for someone who doesn't believe in AGW because it automatically implies that something is true and we are denying the truth rather than just being skeptical about something which we see as not having enough solid evidence.
And as I've said before, the comparison to evolution vs. creationism is silly, let's not go back on that train of discussion because it just leads nowhere.
P.S. Sorry for no responses lately... time has been very tight this week
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Yep, and I hear that if you fly into major cities in China, the first time you see the sun is when you land on your return.
here we go -
Scientists have concluded that the global warming trend caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases is a major contributor to the melting of Himalayan and other tropical glaciers. Now, a new analysis of pollution-filled “brown clouds” over south Asia by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., offers hope that the region may be able to arrest some of the alarming retreat of such glaciers by reducing its air pollution.
More on how the did this actual atmospheric experiment (no arm waving about how CO2 does a fancy dance up in the atmosphere, just actual atmospheric experiments - the way science is actually done)
The Maldives Autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle Campaign (MAC) took place during the region's dry season when polluted air masses travel south from the continent to the Indian Ocean. The air typically contains particles released from industrial and vehicle emissions, and through biomass burning.
Such polluted air has a dual effect of warming the atmosphere as particles absorb sunlight, and of cooling Earth's surface as the particles reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground.
The aircraft, flying in stacked formations, made nearly simultaneous measurements of brown clouds from different altitudes, creating a profile of soot concentrations and light absorption that was unprecedented in its level of vertical detail.
Why not go to Fox News and Junkscience, and check if the often maligned Steve Millroy has slanted or misrepresented the facts? NO?Such polluted air has a dual effect of warming the atmosphere as particles absorb sunlight, and of cooling Earth's surface as the particles reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground.
The aircraft, flying in stacked formations, made nearly simultaneous measurements of brown clouds from different altitudes, creating a profile of soot concentrations and light absorption that was unprecedented in its level of vertical detail.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Sadly, there are loads of people who shun AGW environmentalism like the plague because they've identified it as a 'liberal agenda'. It's akin to how deniers are working to brand AGW environmentalism a (rival) religion so that Good Christians™ will stay away from it.
An AGW sceptic and an AGW denier are two different things. A sceptic is a person who brings an open mind to the table and is willing to take either side. A denier, on the other hand, is a person who's made up his mind that AGW is nonsense and is determined not to be convinced otherwise.
Last edited:
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
So An AGW sceptic is one who agrees with AGW and an AGW denier is one who disagrees. Nice strawman....what¡s the name of the AGWr who's made up his mind that not AGW is nonsense and is determined not to be convinced otherwise.?
Last edited:
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Say we agree to this "don't take the risk" argument and sign off on the Maxi Kyoto coming down the road. We sink into it the 17 trillion dollars that they say they need (probably winds up being triple but that's another subject). Later, one of the following is established -
- GW is not caused by man
- GW is found to not exist
- GW fixes itself
- or Maxi Kyoto does not do a thing to change CO2 levels
No? Then who keeps it?
The same guys responsible for the errors in judgement, misrepresentation of the science, and political scheming to take the money? Buddies and friends of the United Nations?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Antarctica is not the whole world, nor does it contain all of its ice. The Antarctic ice-cap is very stable, due its height (in altitude and latitude). The Grampian ice-cap, on the other hand, was kilometres thick twenty thousand years ago and has now entirely vanished. As have the ice sheets that covered Northern Europe, much of Central Asia, North China and great swathes of North America. Antarctica is by no means a representative example of anything.
And yet you bring it up.
It's surely not in doubt that there was a cataclysmic loss of ice-mass and increase in sea-levels over the few thousand years that ushered in the current interglacial. That was recognised in the early 18thCE as the only viable interpretation of geological observations (the Great Flood having been dismissed).
Dating back to 2000, and concerned only with the West Antarctic ice-sheet, not the total ice-balance. Things have changed since 2000.
A quote from your cite :
Not representative of global climate due to specific local circumstances, in other words.
I don't know, I wasn't there. I didn't kill JFK. If I kill Bush, can I bring that up in my defence? Can't see it working without a damn' good lawyer.
The climate has been warming since about 1880 for a variety of reasons : increased solar output, less volcanic activity than in the 19thCE, land-use and urbanisation, and increased CO2-load (perhaps others). Solar output plateaued around 1950, and the CO2 influence only really took off with Henry Ford. There will have been a CO2-influence back in those halcyon days between the Wars (they were years of glorious summers and fruitful bountiness, outside the Dust Bowl) but insignificant. It's much more significant these days.
Warming leads to sea-level rise through thermal expansion of the oceans.
I'm ignorant of the local New York geology : how's the land-level behaving there? That's not something that can be taken for granted.
Do what now?
You've produced a figure of 0.5mm as the typical annual sea-level rise over the last twenty thousand years, and compared it to the 0.4mm recorded recently. If the 0.5mm figure is typical, sea-levels were half a metre lower a thousand years ago, a metre 2000kya, two metres 4000kya. During all this time people have been digging harbours and generally living along coastlines. They would have noticed the difference. Inexorable sea-level rise would be ingrained in human culture, but it's not. So 0.5mm pa sea-level rise is not typical.
Try some common sense. Take 100 annual measurements; 99 of them are 1, one is 1001. Add, divide, and a typical measurement is 11. It's meaningless, isn't it?
You've taken twenty thousand years where seventeen thousand saw little or no sea-level rise and three thousand saw the results of a catastrophyic collapse of ice-mass along with thermal expansion of the oceans. Add, divide, and out comes a meaningless number.
Alarmism is only a bad thing when it's a false alarm. Are you sure it is?
Again with the Antarctic.
Central Antarctica is stable, and most of Antarctica's ice is stored up there. Much the same applies to Greenland, in the mountains and the north. There's a lot more ice out there, in the Himalayas, the Andes, Patagonia, the Alps. Survivors of the last glacial retreat. That's all on its way to the sea in the not-to-distant future, certainly the next century. A good chunk of Antarctic and Greenland ice will go the same way, around the coasts and in the glacial regions. That's worth a metre or two of anybody's money.
I take it you're not going to apologize?
I take it you're not going to drop your obsession with Al Gore? This is, after all, the Science Forum.
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
False. What he's doing is lying to the public.
**********
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. ... snip ...
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. ... snip ...
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. "
************
Really? See the above.
What's the urgency to act *right now* if the latest estimates show any changes will occur gradually (i.e., take hundreds of years) and we don't really know that CO2 is the culprit Gore claims?
Here's are more examples of Gore's lies:
**********
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
... snip ...
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
... snip ...
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
... snip ...
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
... snip ...
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
************
Gore has called for an immediate freeze on greenhouse-gas emissions and a 90 percent cut in those emissions by 2050. Now since Gore didn't say exactly how that could be done, would you tell us? Specifically? The ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said a freeze, if taken literally, would mean no new businesses, no economic growth and no more people. I fear he might be right. Especially when you lump it on top of all the other taxes democRATS like Gore are eager to get in place once they have the Whitehouse, with control of Congress.
You really do risk management? ROTFLOL!
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Maturity. I'm impressed.
First your flame, then a blatant strawman.
A sceptic is sceptical to the reality of anthropogenic global warming. As in, unsure, undecided, uncertain, insert synonyms here.
A denier is a person who denies that anthropogenic global warming is real. As in, a person who's made up his mind it's not real.
I'd call such a person close-minded.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say he didn't say exactly what could be done. He explained what could be done in his documentary, and his web site has further details. Do you mean that those two are not precise enough?
Last edited:
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I didn't realise the money was specifically for climate research. But it's a very hands-off approach.
I appreciate that Kyoto looms large in your world-view, but this is the Science Forum.
They subsidise (for a few million a year) people to undermine and decry the results of any climate research, be it by Stanford or anybody else. They will continue to promote uncertainty. That has no impact in the scientific world, but it works wonders amongst the proles. Given universal suffrage (an abomination, IMO) that has major political leverage, apart from its immediate economic impact.
If you still have a point and we have to deal with (a) or (b) it's about time to call those believers, maybe "AGW truthers"
That would confirm who's cool with the in-crowd. Aka the crowd that doesn't get out much to experience what's actually going on. Spending so much time in a controlled environment that the real climate becomes a matter of philosophical debate.