Foxfyre wrote:I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate rather than what others say he said. Is he saying that solar activity is insignificant compared to human activity? Or is he saying that humans are having a significant effect? And on what basis is an expert on solar activity saying that humans are having a significant effect?
If you follow the links I gave above, you can see on his homepage the list of his publications.
(As far as I could check not many are listed at University of New Mexico [Albuquerque] Libraries. But especially the articles in scientific periodicals are easily to get via the Library.)
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate rather than what others say he said. Is he saying that solar activity is insignificant compared to human activity? Or is he saying that humans are having a significant effect? And on what basis is an expert on solar activity saying that humans are having a significant effect?
If you follow the links I gave above, you can see on his homepage the list of his publications.
(As far as I could check not many are listed at University of New Mexico [Albuquerque] Libraries. But especially the articles in scientific periodicals are easily to get via the Library.)
I doubt seriously that any of these would reference the two sides of the debate attributed to him, however, nor will they answer my question re his opinions on AGW. Objecting to being used incorrectly by the skeptics as a source for their side and actually being misquoted are separate things.
And taking the debate into the public sector, how much is emotional response going to affect the scientific debate?:
Quote:As global warming has shifted from the subject of scientific trade journals and alternative media to the center of the public and political arenas, it also has become a hot topic in public schools. That has some parents questioning what their children are hearing. Parents who disagree with the global warming theory, or who chalk it up to environmental alarmists or political hyperbole, are finding that their points of view aren''t given the attention afforded the ""other side.""
This has educators wondering if global warming is the next intelligent design versus evolution debate?
SOURCE
Quote:In his book The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery puts aside his essential optimism for long enough to write: "If humans pursue a business-as-usual course for the first half of this century, I believe the collapse of civilisation due to climate change becomes inevitable."
We shouldn't be surprised that when planetary destruction is on the mind, we start seeing nukes again. Climate change has stirred the lees of old fears.
It makes sense that the mushroom cloud, the great spectre of the 20th century, would return to spook the 21st. Bill McKibben, author of a foundation text of the climate change era, The End of Nature (1990), explicitly links the last great fright to the new one. Climate change is "the single biggest challenge facing the planet, the equal in every way to the nuclear threat that transfixed us during the past half-century", he wrote last year.
Some don't buy any of this "climate porn", as a UK think tank recently described such talk. Al Gore's movie is "bullshit from beginning to end", according to Ray Evans, a former Western Mining executive and author of the Lavoisier Group's Nine Facts About Climate Change (2006). For Evans and many others man-made climate change panic is a bugaboo, perhaps even a hoax.
SOURCE
[/QUOTE],
Foxfyre wrote:I doubt seriously that any of these would reference the two sides of the debate attributed to him, however, nor will they answer my question re his opinions on AGW.
And seriously had thought that that would answer your question from above
Quote:I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate.
How do you know that his own articles and reports tell nothing about the effect of solar activity on climate?
I've just ordered via my university three articles, got them shortly afterwrads as pdf-data.
A look at the summary indicates that your opinion could be wrong.
Never mind: don't change but keep your strong believe, Foxfyre!
Walter Hinteler wrote:
From today's Sunday Telegraph:
Quote:Scientist takes legal action over climate claim
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
A leading solar expert has told how he was vilified by environmental campaigners and condemned by scientists after he was wrongly branded a climate-change denier.
Prof Nigel Weiss, from the department of astrophysics at Cambridge University, claims he was astonished to see the strength of feeling against him.
The former president of the Royal Astronomical Society was accused of denying man-made climate change in a column published in a Canadian newspaper.
The article, written for the Toronto-based National Post, said the highly regarded scientist had claimed that global warming could be accounted for by fluctuations in solar activity.
Prof Weiss, however, describes the claims as a "slanderous fabrication" and says he believes that man-made carbon dioxide is directly responsible for global warming.
He said he fully supports the opinion put forward by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.
...
Another leading scientist, Prof Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claimed that he was duped into taking part in a documentary that denied climate change. He said his views in Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle were "grossly distorted".
Gallileo recanted and now apparently so have Weiss and Wunsch. The tenured academic world is rather intolerant of heresy from within its ranks.
Actually, as I read the material more carefully, it is clear that Weiss didn't recant anything. His studies have led him to certain observations and theories about variations in the radiation escaping the sun - variations of sufficient magnitude to contribute to observed (in tree rings) short term (10-15 year) cycles, and as well very likely to larger long term ones such as the medieval warm period, the little ice age, and conceivably recent warming trends, and, as well, possible - even likely, based on his work - future cooling trends. This body of work is hardly original or otherwise unknown, though Weiss is undoubtedly one of the contemporary leaders in the field.
In his denial he was merely careful to stop short of explicit denial of current global warming fads and preoccupations. This notwithstanding the fact that the AGW cult utterly ignores variations in solar activity as a significant potential cause of temperature variation, either in the past or the future.
As Galileo said to a friend , "but it still moves" (with reference to the planetary motion of the earth) -- I wonder what Weiss says in private.
The science and the concepts behind this controversy are not all that unfamiliar, nor are they particularly hard to grasp. Perhaps the only arcane elements of it are the chemical and biological equilibrium reactions relative to the carbon cycle; and the mathematical challenges and limitations attendant to the integration of the coupled, non-linear dynamic equations describing transport phenomena in the atmosphere and the oceans.
The shrill demand by the AGW cultists for control of lifestyle and economic activity throughout the world, rationalized as it is by their self described "modest" claim that they want control of ONLY 1% of the world's GDP, has introduced a host of irrelevant political issues and others associated with personal ambition, lust for power, and, in some quarters, an odd revulsion for humanity itself - as if the human species was some form of biological infection besetting a benign earth.
Dispassionate science has been the first casualty of this controversy. The controversy itself has taken on the features of religious strife, with usually unstated competing views of the value of humanity, and personal competition for power and prominence dominating all other factors. Nearly all of this has come from the increasingly shrill and intolerant protagonists of what has truly become a cult.
Moreover the cultists do not treat disagreement about their largely suspect speculations as anything like a scientific dialogue. Instead it is an inquisition. The contending idea must be destroyed by destroyina anyone who dares to utter it. Where have we seen that kind of behavior nefore?
georgeob1 wrote:
Dispassionate science has been the first casualty of this controversy. The controversy itself has taken on the features of religious strife, with usually unstated competing views of the value of humanity, and personal competition for power and prominence dominating all other factors. Nearly all of this has come from the increasingly shrill and intolerant protagonists of what has truly become a cult.
Moreover the cultists do not treat disagreement about their largely suspect speculations as anything like a scientific dialogue. Instead it is an inquisition. The contending idea must be destroyed by destroyina anyone who dares to utter it. Where have we seen that kind of behavior nefore?
Any doubts are viewed as utter denial. You must go along to get along. This is a religion where freedom of thought or will is not allowed.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I doubt seriously that any of these would reference the two sides of the debate attributed to him, however, nor will they answer my question re his opinions on AGW.
And seriously had thought that that would answer your question from above
Quote:I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate.
How do you know that his own articles and reports tell nothing about the effect of solar activity on climate?
I've just ordered via my university three articles, got them shortly afterwrads as pdf-data.
A look at the summary indicates that your opinion could be wrong.
Never mind: don't change but keep your strong believe, Foxfyre!
What strong belief would that be, Walter? What strong belief do I hold that you consider to be so irrational or disturbing or wrong?
Otherwise, I can't imagine anything being said in the current political forum, which is what I was discussing, that would be contained in Professor Weiss's scientific papers. At least they wouldn't unless he is a psychic.
And I don't even have to be personally insulting to say that, either.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate rather than what others say he said. Is he saying that solar activity is insignificant compared to human activity? Or is he saying that humans are having a significant effect? And on what basis is an expert on solar activity saying that humans are having a significant effect?
If you follow the links I gave above, you can see on his homepage the list of his publications.
(As far as I could check not many are listed at University of New Mexico [Albuquerque] Libraries. But especially the articles in scientific periodicals are easily to get via the Library.)
I went to the homepage which provided no information at all other than he said he his position had been mischaracterized. It said nothing in response to the questions I would have for the Professor.
By the way, methane isn't just produced by cattle raised for beef. Why even protected species of wolves, felines, rodents, annd birds are known to emit a bit of swamp gas attendant to their digestion. Humans are part of the equation too. Indeed it is well known that a very prioper diet of legumes and tofu actually maximizes the amount of methane so (ahem) expelled. Perhaps we should eat more animal protein to reduce that aspect of the problem.
More than that, the anerobic decay of all organic material - animal and vegetable - produces large quantities of methane, which, pound for pound is about 26 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. This is as true of the leaves that fall from the trees as it is of the offal from a meat processing plant. Indeed the latter may well ultimately be less harmful because it is so concentrated and so easily recovered as a clean-burning natural fuel and substitute for petroleum gas.
Foxfyre wrote:
I went to the homepage which provided no information at all other than he said he his position had been mischaracterized. It said nothing in response to the questions I would have for the Professor.
I wouldn't have expected different.
Therefore
I wrote:If you follow the links I gave above, you can see on his homepage the list of his publications.
(As far as I could check not many are listed at University of New Mexico [Albuquerque] Libraries. But especially the articles in scientific periodicals are easily to get via the Library.)
You can't get those reports from the homepage.
At least, I couldn't. I bought them (online) via my library as pdf-data.
georgeob1 wrote:High Seas wrote:
Our host, Blatham, will tell you about our poker-playing expedition (on an evening when Lola was out of town) in which he discovered there ain't no chaos theory involved - just that some of us will only bet on distributions we estimate to be Poisson; alas, you can't even tell binomial from Cauchy <G>
It's worse than that! Conditional probabilities; Bayes theorem; non-independent events; sampling with and without replacement -- all offer opportunities to fall into the pit -- in addition to to assumptions about the probability distribution.
Then, of course, there is the human impulse for the irrational draw on an inside straight. Ok, who was the big winner??
George - with vast delay due to overseas travel I'm finally setting your mind at rest as to final query: I was the big winner - but (tell nobody please) was also the dealer in all big hands. AND I can count
georgeob1 wrote:By the way, methane isn't just produced by cattle raised for beef. Why even protected species of wolves, felines, rodents, annd birds are known to emit a bit of swamp gas attendant to their digestion. Humans are part of the equation too. Indeed it is well known that a very prioper diet of legumes and tofu actually maximizes the amount of methane so (ahem) expelled. Perhaps we should eat more animal protein to reduce that aspect of the problem.
More than that, the anerobic decay of all organic material - animal and vegetable - produces large quantities of methane, which, pound for pound is about 26 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. This is as true of the leaves that fall from the trees as it is of the offal from a meat processing plant. Indeed the latter may well ultimately be less harmful because it is so concentrated and so easily recovered as a clean-burning natural fuel and substitute for petroleum gas.
George (again, sorry) - on methane you may wish to consult satellite pics.
Vast clouds of methane are stationary over both the Brazilian Amazon and Congolese jungles - isotopes show the methane is generated by living vegetation, not the decomposing kind. Have no link right now, will revert, but am reliably told by fellow aviator that related article appeared in recent SciAm edition. Oddly (or perhaps not so oddly) locations in which methane gas is flared as in many offshore oilfields show no corresponding methane gas concentration, even short-term, in atmospheric layers above.
I figured you for the winner !
I have a long track record of being lucky at cards - particularly with the variatioons on poker allowing options under some conditions to double the pot to make certain cards wild -- often popular late in the game and after a few drinks. I've always attributed it to the fact that I'm Irish and God loves me more than others.
Didn't know about methane emissions from living plants or the concentrations over the Amazon. However in damp conditions just a few feet of cover are all that is required to create the anerobic conditions required for decay of vegetable matter to methane.
Tks, but as I understood it these were no anaerobic conditions, these were methane emissions from living vegetation. However as said above will have to double-check, but sat pics are said to be clear on isotopic criteria.
...fellow aviator just got the text..........
Quote:What do you do as a scientist when you discover something that clearly contradicts the textbooks? The two of us faced this problem head-on when experiments we were running in 2005 showed that living vegetation produces the greenhouse gas methane. The established view held that only microbes that thrive without oxygen (anaerobic bacteria) can manufacture this gas. But our tests unexpectedly revealed that green plants also make methane--and quite a lot of it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=1367E15B-E7F2-99DF-346DBF33877B8596
dammit, it's really aviation ueber alles, and never mind my good friend Walter's objections
And there is this. (Is Frank Keppler (Max Planck Institute) one of the bad boys with horns and tail and all that in scientific circles? I seem to recall his name coming up waaaay back in the thread, but I'm getting old and forgetful.)
The forgotten methane source
In the last few years, more and more research has focused on the biosphere; particularly, on how gases which influence the climate are exchanged between the biosphere and atmosphere. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics have now carefully analysed which organic gases are emitted from plants. They made the surprising discovery that plants release methane, a greenhouse gas - and this goes against all previous assumptions. Equally surprising was that methane formation is not hindered by the presence of oxygen. This discovery is important not just for plant researchers but also for understanding the connection between global warming and increased greenhouse gas production (Nature, January 12, 2006).
MORE HERE
Foxfyre wrote:Is Frank Keppler (Max Planck Institute) one of the bad boys with horns and tail and all that in scientific circles? I seem to recall his name coming up waaaay back in the thread, but I'm getting old and forgetful.
He got the European Young Investigator Award and heads in Mainz a group for young scientists now.
And John T. G. Hamilton, Marc Braß und Thomas Röckmann are wellknown, too.
So 10 to 30% of one year's methane are produced by plants - which was formerly though to be impossible.
This means now exactly what re climate change? It doesn't happen? It isn't our fault?
I think it means we still are learning more about something we know very little about, before we can say with much confidence that we are causing or not causing climatic change.
I would like to see a reliable study of the numbers of trees now, vs 50 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. In Oklahoma, large portions of the state were prairie with few trees a hundred years ago, and now there are trees virtually everywhere. Farmers planted windbreaks and timbered areas around their dwellings and for cutting fence posts, and these trees have multiplied several times over in some areas. Many cities and towns are now semi-forested and full of shrubs, trees, and other plants. Looking at forests nationwide, and worldwide, I don't really know if there are any really reliable studies, but from personal observation I know that there are many more trees and other vegetation in significant regions of the great plains than there were decades ago or a couple of hundred years ago.
I don't think, Oklahoma is reprentative for the whole earth.
Nor is Colorado.
Plague of beetles raises climate change fears for American beauty
Quote:Colorado's distinctive lodgepole pine trees are under attack from a beetle infestation described by scientists as a "perfect storm" which could destroy 90% of the western American state's pine forests.
The bark beetle outbreak was responsible for the death of 4.8m lodgepole pines in Colorado last year, up from 1m in 2005. The infestation has spread across 1,000 square miles of forest - nearly half the total in the state. Forty three per cent of the state's lodgepole pines have died as a result of the infestation. But it is not limited to Colorado: the beetles have munched their way through the western US and Canada, affecting 36,000 square miles of forest
Quote:I'm Irish and God loves me more than others.
It may be so. As Woody Allen said, "I believe in God. I just think he is an incompetent."
ps... High Seas has a zest for poker similar to how I suppose a neck must look to a tummy-growling vampire. Several weeks ago, she managed to get a game going at a mid-town restaurant with a sizeable group of drunk Georgians. I won enough to cover my delicious meal and then, as I am unprincipled, left the restaurant, throwing anti-American taunts over my shoulder. High Seas stayed to gather up more of the little they had left.
