Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I applaud your efforts in this field, Okie. I can see you have been doing some serious reading in the area.

I think you have hit on the most important point that none of us can forget in this debate.

If I may paraphrase---No one has shown exactly why there is an increase in surface temperature. At present the temperature is not alarming. Any increase is likely to be small. THE KEY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS TO GO SLOWLY INTO THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY AND ESTABLISH, AS WOULD NATURALLY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE TREND IN TECHNOLOGY, INVENTIONS AND METHODS WHICH WILL ENABLE US TO USE FAR LESS OIL.

The left, as you can plainly see, are using a study( Glabal Warming) to denigrate President Bush for political purposes.

It won't work!!!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

From an article in the May-June issue of Columbia Journalism Review.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bernard, I see you are also up late at night reading global warming reports and trying to interpret graphs. Isn't it exciting?

Bernard, the major problems or holes I see in global warmers are the following:

Questionable accuracy of temperature monitoring vs past, and consistency of land use, in other words, comparing apples to oranges.

Conflicting information from tropospheric and lower stratospheric measurements, which show little or now warming, or instead cooling.

If warming is occurring, the very possible or even likely correlation with solar cycles.

The many hoops and assumptions required by global warming theory to blame CO2 concentrations, and how does this all stack up with or tie into the factor of water vapor inherent in weather patterns and climatic cycles.

Even if global warming is occurring, and it is caused in part by CO2, is it serious enough to be alarmed about, and even if so, could anything be done about it practically, and if so, would the cure kill the patient.

Bernard, as Krauthammer stated so well, some of the pundits are testing our credulity to the limit, and I think my limit was surpassed long ago.

Do you stand by your statement that satellite data show cooling? Or is this just your latest attempt to ignore facts when they dont' agree with what you have stated?

My credulity is tested by people claiming something that turns out to be completely false.

0 Replies

Boys, it isn't terribly important what caused the rise that has been document by competent scientists with no political ax to grind. There has almost certainly been an significant increase in mean global temperature, and the effects of that change are readily evident around the globe.

It is also reasonable to assume that the great impacts humans have had on the environment since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution IS an important variable. There should be no question that human activities over the past 100-200 years have had greater effect on the environment than in all the rest of human history. Even if human activity has not been THE most important variable (and that's not an unreasonable assumption), it is the only variable that we can control.

Will we as a species elect to adopt drastic controls that would essentially deprive us of the benefits of abundant energy? Not bloody likely. Hence we are left with two choices: (1) ignore the whole question and continue to expand our demand for petrochemical energy until all that is left is coal that produces much more particle and acid pollution, or (2) bring on line as quickly as possible nuclear power stations to reduce the amount of petrochemicals needed to produce electricity, and develope other alternatives without delay. If you have another alternative, what is it?

The observed increase in global temperature is not a one shot deal, but is the accumulative result of a long-standing trend. Such trends continue to accelerate as long as the underlying causes go unchanged, or change to increase the rate of departure from the norm. This is often a non-linear progression and can in some cases lead to catastrophic system failure. Not always, but it can happen. The rate of change in a trend where the climate is involved is highly unlikely to reverse itself overnight. It took a hundred or more years to get to this point, and we should expect that it will take the system at least an equal amount of time to return to previous norms even if we returned to the 19th century energy sources and consumption. That option has already been ruled out, so we should expect the existing trend to continue, perhaps with an accelerated rate of change, for at least another 50 years.

Personally I think this thread is in the wrong place, and should be moved instead to the Science and technology Forum.

0 Replies

Ashman, Wrong again! This issue rightfully rests in the Politics Forum. Without government action, the use of fossil fuel will remain on the upswing - especially in developing countries such as China.

Some of us see "Economics" as the correct forum, but the originator of this thread picked "Politics" for good reason.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Global warming caused by cycles of the sun? Makes sense.

http://biocab.org/Temperature_and_Solar_Radiation.html

Too bad the graph doesn't make much sense. Check out the faked trend line vs the decadal solar flares. For the trend to be accurate we should have roughly the same above as below the line. By the end of the graph it is obviously higher on the curve than it should be. I notice he doesn't provide the data points which would allow accurate graphing. By the end of the chart, solar flares are 4 times what they were in 1980. 25 in 1980 and 100 in 2015. When I checked for stats to compare to the chart here. I found that the sun reached the height of its last cycle in 2000. It has less activity in the last 5 years. Are you claiming that warming occurs and doesn't go away with the fluctuations of the sun? Shouldn't we see the exact same warming and cooling cycle related to the sun cycle if it really follows it? But we don't.

Quote:

The correlation of temperatures to the sun is obvious, it is easy to understand, and it requires no hoops to jump through. It is obviously true. You turn up the heat, the temperature rises. 1 + 1 = 2. Amazing! Much more believable than the CO2 scenario, wherein: a causes b maybe, b causes c maybe, c causes d maybe, d causes e maybe, but it also causes maybe f, g, h, i and j, which might work in conflict with b, c, and d.

Nice try okie. But the graph and information you provided is saying that 1+1=3 not 2. It hurts your argument factually. It doesn't help it. When I went to check out the solar information it shows the solar activity from 1954-1964 was almost double what it is in the present cycle.
Here is the sunspot number for the last 3 cycles. Notice it shows the present cycle is LESS than the 2 previous ones. The complete opposite of the chart presented by your article.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

Quote:

Also, this matter of water vapor is a troubling factor to the global warming theorists:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

In the above article, I quote the following:
We conclude:

"Due to the so called "greenhouse effect" - caused by atmospheric trace gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O) - infrared radiation from the earth is stored temporarily in the atmosphere. Of all these trace gases, water vapor represents the most important constituent. It contributes to the natural greenhouse warming process by approximately 60%. Water vapor amplifies the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse warming through a positive feedback. This amplification is counteracted by the increased reflection off clouds. How these two factors combine in the real atmosphere still remains an open question."

In terms of surface temperatures around the globe, cloud cover inherent with weather patterns would obviously represent the most dominant determinant of temperatures. I have yet to see any global warming discussion address this issue in any satisfactory manner, in regard to patterns and intensity through....say the last hundred years, yet to me it represents the proverbial "elephant in the room."

The science is still moving forward. It is being studied. The fact that they don't have the answers yet about cloud cover doesn't negate the present warming.

0 Replies

Just think what government can accomplish by establishing some rules on conbustion engines and other transportation issues. Reduce the highway speeds, reduce the hydro-carbons from engines, build more efficient public transportation systems, allow oil to be pumped in the US territories, etc., etc., etc.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Boys, it isn't terribly important what caused the rise that has been document by competent scientists with no political ax to grind. There has almost certainly been an significant increase in mean global temperature, and the effects of that change are readily evident around the globe.

Good points Asherman, (Anyone that hasn't should read the rest of Ash's post)

Is there global warming? Yes.
Is it all caused by humans? We don't know.
Is some of it caused by humans? It is scientifically difficult to deny it must be some of the cause.

Quote:

Personally I think this thread is in the wrong place, and should be moved instead to the Science and technology Forum.

Unfortunately the arguments are more political than scientific when people oppose doing anything about the possible effects. They may try to wrap them in a psuedo scientific wrapper but in the end it is political.

0 Replies

But, both the problem and alternative solutions are all scientific, engineering and technical. Government may provide some working capital, and suggest directions for research/development, but other than that its much more hinderance than help.

I expect that the new Republican administration will make energy a more visible national priority, especially if we can break the back of the terrorist organizations who have sworn our demise. I don't believe that making a big political deal out of this issue is warranted. Those with the education and skills needed to responde to the problem are already at work. Support them and leave them to do the jobs they were trained to do. Congress probably should begin thinking about what legislation will be required to safely bring nuclear power plants on-line in less time.

How many nuclear power plants will be needed to reduce our reliance on petrochemicals by say, 10% for a start? Where should those plants be located, and who is to run them? Should nuclear power production be left in the hands of private industry for profit, or should government run the whole show with the energy marketed at cost? Now there's a political question.

0 Replies

Quote:

...practically all of the peer-reviewed research find that a) the globe is warming and b) that much of it is caused by a human-made increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. There is some debate on how much the globe is warming, how much of it is man-made, and how much warming to expect in the future. But the near consensus that global warming is real and man-made hasn't emerged because the skeptics weren't heard. It has emerged because the data contradicted them

Thank you Thomas. Okie Bernard Foxy et al please read learn and inwardly digest the above 4 sentences.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
...practically all of the peer-reviewed research find that a) the globe is warming and b) that much of it is caused by a human-made increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. There is some debate on how much the globe is warming, how much of it is man-made, and how much warming to expect in the future. But the near consensus that global warming is real and man-made hasn't emerged because the skeptics weren't heard. It has emerged because the data contradicted them

Thank you Thomas. Okie Bernard Foxy et al please read learn and inwardly digest the above 4 sentences.

I have an open mind on this issue. And because I am still educating myself on all the pros and cons, I'm not accepting those who are skeptical of the 'peer review' as gospel, but when they have no dog in the fight, I also have to think they must have some reason for their skepticism. And I'm not willing yet to accept without question 'peer reviewed research' as competent without knowing who the 'peers' were that reviewed it and know whether THEY have a dog in the fight.

When GeorgeOB1 and Asherman, neither of which could be accused of being tree hugging Left wing liberals, wacko or otherwise, say that the evidence is persuasive that humans have caused the current global warming cycle, I pay attention. Neither tend to shoot from the hip and their reasons for believing anything are generally carefully considered.

And when I talk with or read opinions of scientists who have reviewed the data and have problems with the interpretations of it, I also pay attention. At least I pay attention to those who don't have a dog in the fight either. While I don't often fully understand their assessment, I trust it to be carefully considered.

All I ask is that we get it as right as we can before we start making major changes and implementing restrictive policies that might do far more harm than good.

0 Replies

Scientists are humans first and foremost, and some of them can be swayed, i.e. interpret data one way as opposed to a different way, because of their preconceived values, beliefs, biases, and yes, political philosophy.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Scientists are humans first and foremost, and some of them can be swayed, i.e. interpret data one way as opposed to a different way, because of their preconceived values, beliefs, biases, and yes, political philosophy.

That's my concern. If you have one absolutist writing for a journal that has taken an absolutist stance, it is probable that the peers selected for review will also be absolutists. Remember just thirty or so years ago, we had an enormous peer reviewed scientific consensus that human caused pollution was causing unacceptable global cooling and speeding us to an artificially produced ice age. They all went to international summits and made dire predictions on television and in magazines and, yes, in scientific journals. And they were ALL wrong except for the skeptics then that were questioning those official looking charts and graphs and models that just didn't hold up under critical scrutiny.

Have scientists, as a group, become that much smarter in 30 or 40 years?

I am a passionate environmentalist and I hate hot weather and drought. I don't want to hurt the former and I don't want to cause more of the latter. But I just think it makes good sense to really know what we are doing when it comes to national or global policy and practice.

0 Replies

But there is a difference between saying. The answer is 9 instead of 10 vs saying the answer is 0. The debate on global warming is the 9 vs 10 debate, not a 10 vs 0 debate as many seem to portray it.

Global warming exists. Some of it is human caused.

What the result will be is debatable. Whether global warming exists, isn't.

0 Replies

Foxfyre said:

Quote:

If you have one absolutist writing for a journal that has taken an absolutist stance, it is probable that the peers selected for review will also be absolutists.

I very much doubt that to be true. If a scientist is dead set hard-wired into a position, it is unlikely that he would submit something to a reputable, generalist, academic journal. He or she might assume, perhaps rightly, that it will not be published there because of its' one-sided approach.

Editors of reputable journals would never submit an article to a selected group of academicians who would agree with the author, regardless of the merits of the article and/or research therein.

You notice I am referring to reputable, top of the line, journals. There are journals, I suppose, that are predisposed or slanted to a particular viewpoint. It is to those journals that your hypothetical absolutist author would submit the piece. He would be singing to the choir, but who cares, he or she got it published.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am a passionate environmentalist ...

That's excellent to hear.

0 Replies

I sat in on Parliament many years ago when they approved the development of nuclear power plants in England. Politics plays a big part on the use of energy.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am a passionate environmentalist ...

That's excellent to hear.

It has been in my profile for more than two years now, Walter, and you won't be able to find a post of mine anywhere that even suggests otherwise.

0 Replies

Fox,

There was no "enormous peer reviewed concensus" in the 70s. There were a few highly publicised scientific reports but it didn't make it all scientists or even most for that matter.

Quote:

This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s. The theory never had strong scientific support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Wiki cites several peer reviewed papers that dispute the "concesus" you claim existed including ones the media pulled quotes out of context to hype the "global cooling" theory that didn't exist.

The one being absolutist is you fox. Science isn't absolutist. Just look at the changes that have been made over time. The datasets from satellites have been changed about 8 times over the years based on new research or questions about the existing datasets. Some of those changes moved the data up, some down. All the changes were fairly small. A warming of .42 instead of .38 doesn't make warming go away. Warming is still occurring, the question is how much and how fast. Scientists are still working on that.

Should we plan for the extremes or somewhere in the middle? I tend to think if one extreme is catastrophic we should tend to plan for that since there is no way to fix the catastrophic failure after it occurs. Even the middle area of the projections says we need to do something to prevent coastal cities from ending up under water.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Fox,

There was no "enormous peer reviewed concensus" in the 70s. There were a few highly publicised scientific reports but it didn't make it all scientists or even most for that matter.

Quote:
This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s. The theory never had strong scientific support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Wiki cites several peer reviewed papers that dispute the "concesus" you claim existed including ones the media pulled quotes out of context to hype the "global cooling" theory that didn't exist.

The one being absolutist is you fox. Science isn't absolutist. Just look at the changes that have been made over time. The datasets from satellites have been changed about 8 times over the years based on new research or questions about the existing datasets. Some of those changes moved the data up, some down. All the changes were fairly small. A warming of .42 instead of .38 doesn't make warming go away. Warming is still occurring, the question is how much and how fast. Scientists are still working on that.

Should we plan for the extremes or somewhere in the middle? I tend to think if one extreme is catastrophic we should tend to plan for that since there is no way to fix the catastrophic failure after it occurs. Even the middle area of the projections says we need to do something to prevent coastal cities from ending up under water.

I am the one member here who refuses to claim that I believe anything in this debate is absolute at this time, and you call ME the absolutist? I use Wiki as a source for links, names, key words, and a quick source for information that I know can be corroborated, but I don't use it as an authority for anything, and certainly not as an authority on scientific peer review. I was a sometimes student, agency head, and regular visitor to our two college campuses in our town during the 70's and can assure you that academia then was all in a dither over global cooling.

But I don't pretend any expertise on this. I can only cite my reasons for why I do not dismiss out of hand those climatologists who are skeptical re the conventional scientific wisdom on this subject.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know