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

I didn't say that you "suggested that one scientist was right and another was wrong on this issue".

I always had the imnpression that you critisise issue pro-global warming more than the other way around.

Sorry that I got that wrong.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am impressed by those posting here who have the scientific expertise to know which group of scientists is correct. I don't.

You don't understand how science works at all. It isn't a matter of being correct so much as forwarding and advancing theories.

The current accepted theories of climate change are sound theories which have stood up to a lot of criticism. No doubt there will be more criticism in the future, which will either be handled, or the theory will be broken and a new one will be installed in its place.

From an ideological standpoint, there are those who just aren't willing to admit that what we do here on the planet has effects. One of the major reasons for this lack of willingness to admit the effects of our actions is the amount of money it would cause address the problem. This is not a morally defensible position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I didn't say that you "suggested that one scientist was right and another was wrong on this issue".

I always had the imnpression that you critisise issue pro-global warming more than the other way around.

Sorry that I got that wrong.

You're not wrong that I am healthily skeptical of science with a motive for bias. And yes, I am critical of those who are so pro-global warming that they demonize those of us who are willing to look at other data. And I don't have too much faith in those who won't even look at or consider other data.

For instance, what did you think about the reports that global warming is affected by increased solar activity? Do you think that warrants a closer look?

Don't you think the fact that the polar caps are shrinking on Mars at the same time they are shrinking on Earth should at least be considered for some correlation?

Shouldn't we even consider a report, by a person who appears to have pretty good scientific credentials, that says Earth stopped warming in the late 1990's?

I have to think that all these things, if true, are important. And I don't think they should just be blown off because some already have their minds made up that unless humankind changes its ways immediately, we are doomed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

For instance, what did you think about the reports that global warming is affected by increased solar activity? Do you think that warrants a closer look?

Yes, but that doesn't hinder me (us) to act and react.

Foxfyre wrote:

Don't you think the fact that the polar caps are shrinking on Mars at the same time they are shrinking on Earth should at least be considered for some correlation?

To be honest: before I was here on A2K, I'd no idea at all that such could be related

Your last question ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
For instance, what did you think about the reports that global warming is affected by increased solar activity? Do you think that warrants a closer look?

Yes, but that doesn't hinder me (us) to act and react.

No it doesn't, but 'act and react' to what? To counter effects of solar activity? Or to keep pushing for policies and regulations that are completely unrelated to solar activity?

Foxfyre wrote:
Don't you think the fact that the polar caps are shrinking on Mars at the same time they are shrinking on Earth should at least be considered for some correlation?

To be honest: before I was here on A2K, I'd no idea at all that such could be related

You probably didn't mean to suggest that the quote (in red above) was mine but it looks that way in your post. But if there is a correlation between shrinking polar ice on both planets, couldn't it logically follow that human generated greenhouse gasses are less important than is currently being promoted?

Your last question ...

. . .I think merits at least some interest as the implications could actually factor into the first two questions.

I still think that that both the facts and the remedy for anything that we can remedy remain in too much conflict for much certainty about anything re global warming at this point.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I still think that that both the facts and the remedy for anything that we can remedy remain in too much conflict for much certainty about anything re global warming at this point.

You are right: I shouldn't have stopped smoking before I knew exactly that this was the reason why I died from lung cancer.

0 Replies

There was proof positive that smoking was bad for you Walter. Or you wouldn't have quit. You did quit didn't you? Please tell me you quit.

0 Replies

My father was an interior and lung surgeon, who always told me that smoking was bad.

But he smoked until he died (nothing to do with it).

Taking now those two controversial messages, taking in account that parents usually are biased towards their children ...

Well, the flights to Chicago, "Duke City" and back to Europe, the gathering and other meetings and visits in non-smoking areas will certainly help me stopping now finally.

0 Replies

Now lets consider carrots. I would guess that close to 100% of Americans and Europeans 1 year old or older who have died or are in danger of dying at some point have eaten carrots on more than one occasion. Looking at a correlation between eating carrots and death, one could easily conclude that carrots are extremely hazardous to health.

Or isn't it more prudent to at least look at other possible causes of death that are completely unrelated to carrots? And is it prudent to ban carrots or order severe restrictions on carrots before we look at those other possible causes? Would it be possible that the carrots are actually innocent and a ban completely unnecessary?

The person who wants to destroy the carrot market so he can sell more of his broccoli, however, might prefer to just look at the data showing a correlation between carrots and death and might resist looking at other possible or likely causes. If he commissions a study, he might look for an anti-carrot scientist to do it.

I still say that so far, there appears to be reason to look at more than one factor in the global warming issue.

(And I hope you are so miserable not being able to smoke, you'll opt to quit so you can really enjoy not smoking, Walter. Is the "Duke City" you plan to visit Albuquerque? Smile

)

0 Replies

THis breaks my heart, but I will post it because it is the type of thing that is happening now.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060413_walrus_pups.html

"Stranded Walrus Pups Cry for Help
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 13 April 2006
11:23 am ET

On a summer research cruise through the Arctic Ocean aboard the icebreaker Healy, scientists were surrounded by an unprecedented number of barking, abandoned walrus pups.

Strict restrictions on interacting with marine mammals prevented the researchers rescuing the nine pups, which were probably abandoned when their moms were forced to chase rapidly retreating seasonal sea ice.

"We would sail to a particular location and stay there for 24 hours at a time, and one or two of these pups would swim up to us, and the poor little guys would just bark at us for hours on end," said Carin Ashjian, a research team member from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. "It was really awful. I wouldn't go outside."

The pups likely drowned or starved to death.

Today, scientists announced the results of the 2004 cruise and what they think was behind the crying pups.

Mother-pup bond

Adult Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens, dive as deep as 630 feet (200 meters) and use sensitive facial bristles to forage for clams and crabs on the seafloor.

But walrus pups can't forage for themselves and rely on their mother's milk for up to two years.

Mother walruses take their young nearly everywhere they go, but they need a safe place to leave the pups when it's time to find food or if they both need a rest from swimming.

Ice platforms floating over shallow waters have traditionally been the perfect place for both these needs.

The walruses follow these platforms as they retreat northward in summer.

Icy retreat

So why were these pups left alone in deep waters?

The researchers found evidence that in the summer of 2004, water 6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual washed into the Canada Basin. This might have caused the seasonal sea ice over the shallow spots to melt quicker than usual or drift to deeper, colder waters.

"We think ... the ice retreated really quickly," Ashjian told LiveScience. "We think the mothers had to keep up with the ice and the babies couldn't keep pace and were left behind."

In areas where the ice remained, the bottom is up to 9,300 feet (3,000 meters) deep. That's too deep for a walrus to dive and feed, so the mothers may have swam off looking for better feeding opportunities, leaving their pups behind to fend for themselves.

This is the latest evidence of animals struggling to deal with climate change. A recent study suggests that a quarter of the world's animal and plant species could be extinct by 2050. Studies have also suggested polar bears could struggle for survival as Arctic ice retreats.

"If walruses and other ice-associated marine mammals cannot adapt to caring for their young in shallow waters without sea-ice available as a resting platform between dives to the sea floor, a significant population decline of this species could occur," the research team wrote in the April issue of the journal Aquatic Mammals.

The lead author of the study is Lee Cooper, a biogeochemist at the University of Tennessee.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
at the same time, there are other credentialed scientists who aren't supporting the findings of the alarmists at all.

Where, perchance, do these scientists receive their funding from? Oil companies?

Cycloptichorn

Well I just posted an article from a professor at MIT. He talks about the intimidation of dissenting scientists by the global warming scare force.

Why don't you try to prove that he is paid off by oil companies, if that's what you fervently believe?

I asked a question intended to highlight the fact that everyone receives their funding from somewhere; and many of the scientists who are anti-global warming theory, are funded by oil companies.

So prove he's a stooge, paid off by the oil companies or withdraw the charge. Simple.

If you're gonna use smears and imply someone is intellectually dishonest you better have something to back it up.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have no doubt that the same type of professor that talks about intimidation of dissenting scientists is the type that talks about 'liberal bias' on campus and how we must fix this legistlatively. No thanks.

That kind of talk makes you uncomfortable, eh? He gave specific examples of the intimidation he was referring to and didn't mention legislation at all, unless I missed it. Why don't you show us where he did so? Or better yet, address the substance and specifics of his examples of intimidation without running from them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

if one of our professors had theories that ran contrary to everyone else's, I doubt he would feel entirely comfortable in the department.

Why not? I thought scientists were supposed to be open minded pursuers of fact, not the thought police, and not stifling dissent.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The reason that scientists who don't believe in climate change are eschewed is that the vast majority of observable evidence states that they are wrong.

(emphasis yours)

but earlier Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't understand how science works at all. It isn't a matter of being correct so much as forwarding and advancing theories.

I may or may not understand science, but I do understand people and can tell when they talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

From an ideological standpoint, there are those who just aren't willing to admit that what we do here on the planet has effects.

I think everyone knows and readily admits that what we do 'has effects'. The question is: are they the catastrophic effects that your inferences indicate and do they require the drastic measures to correct them that you advocate? Or are there other causes of these phenomenon largely out of our control?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One of the major reasons for this lack of willingness to admit the effects of our actions is the amount of money it would cause address the problem.

I'm quite sure that you are very generous when spending OPM (Other People's Money). It's easy to get hooked on OPM and it gives you a real rush, that great exhilarating feeling of being righteous and benevolent, as well as wise, compassionate and progressive. Yep, OPM is quite powerful stuff when used in quantities large or small. Very addictive and packs a kick.

But how much of your own money have you spent on the problem?

Or better yet, will UT where you work be a beneficiary of money to 'study' and 'fix' the global warming crisis if your view were to prevail upon Congress?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is not a morally defensible position.

Is it part of science to tell us what is moral and what is not?

Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to convince us with facts?

-------------------------------------------------------

I, for one, am very skeptical of global warming theory because I believe it may rest on wholly inadequate evidence of doubtful accuracy.

Temperatures for the last 100-125 years are commonly cited to 'prove' that the temperature will rise an 'average' of 1-2 degrees in the next 100 years.

My question is: do we really think that all the data from 60, 80, 100 or more years ago was gathered with as much accuracy as we are able to do today with digital equipment and advanced instrumentation?

Is it at all possible, or do we even let it enter our thinking that there needs to be given a greater margin of error for much of the data that is many decades old and measured differently than the current data against which it is compared?

If we are talking about a difference of 1-2 degrees, I think any reasonable person would approach 100 year old temperature records with a healthy degree of skepticism and wonder: just how accurate are these?

Are they as accurate as the data we gather today, or has our investment in multimillion dollar pieces of equipment gained us NO additional accuracy in data gathering?

Then, even if we grant that a warming trend seems to be occurring, doesn't it make at least a little sense to notice that our nearest planetary neighbor (Mars) is exhibiting some of the same symptoms? (Oh yeah I forgot, you didn't want to talk about that.............)

0 Replies

Ah, another battle of egos and rational thought.

0 Replies

Sumac, methinks you got that right! Laughing

0 Replies

i~m beginning to wonder about the ^*rational. LOL

0 Replies

Oh yes, it seems so much more 'rational' to use ad hominems directed against the member making the argument than it is to counter that argument with a reasoned argument. Let's see, in the last few posts who might have done that? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

Is it at all possible, or do we even let it enter our thinking that there needs to be given a greater margin of error for much of the data that is many decades old and measured differently than the current data against which it is compared?

If we are talking about a difference of 1-2 degrees, I think any reasonable person would approach 100 year old temperature records with a healthy degree of skepticism and wonder: just how accurate are these?

Are they as accurate as the data we gather today, or has our investment in multimillion dollar pieces of equipment gained us NO additional accuracy in data gathering?

Interesting that you say there is inaccuracy but then demand that we believe ALL the inaccuracy is only in one direction. Statistics would say it is as likely for the inaccuracy to be in both directions making the average over that time reasonably accurate.

The doubtful argument is yours rl. Just because you don't want to believe something doesn't make it inaccurate. Provide evidence of all the measurements being too cold. Failure to do so leaves us with standard statistical analysis.

Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to convince us with facts instead of your fantastical tales of how people 100 years ago all read thermometers 1-2 degrees colder than actual?
If half the people read thermometers correctly back then it would require the other half to be off by 2-4 degrees which becomes even more unlikely in your scenario.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Temperatures for the last 100-125 years are commonly cited to 'prove' that the temperature will rise an 'average' of 1-2 degrees in the next 100 years.

My question is: do we really think that all the data from 60, 80, 100 or more years ago was gathered with as much accuracy as we are able to do today with digital equipment and advanced instrumentation?

A visit in any science museum will show you that those instruments generally were as accurate as others today. (Any idea, why [most] meteorologist still prefer to use "analogue"/mechanical instruments?)

There's a Brief History of Temperature online.

0 Replies

Accuracy of the thermometers is one factor, perhaps not significant. How about the very significant change in population and land use, especially in and around cities, agricultural and otherwise, which influence humidity, absorption of solar radiation, and other inter-related factors, which of course influence temperatures?

0 Replies

Real life:

Quote:

...

Spoiling for an ideological fight, eh?

Here's the only parts of your post worth responding to, and those just barely:

Quote:

But how much of your own money have you spent on the problem?

I donate every year to TEXPIRG and Clean Water action. You probably are right that I could do more, but I'm trying to pay off my Student loans.

Quote:

Or better yet, will UT where you work be a beneficiary of money to 'study' and 'fix' the global warming crisis if your view were to prevail upon Congress?

I don't know; I work in the Physics Department, not Climatology. But I assume so; we do get a huge amount of gov't contracts for research (including a gigantic slice of available DoD monies).

Quote:

Is it part of science to tell us what is moral and what is not?

No, that's the realm of Ethics. But of course you knew that.

Quote:

Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to convince us with facts?

No, why would it? It isn't my intention to convince you of anything at all. I post for my benefit, not yours.

Quote:

Then, even if we grant that a warming trend seems to be occurring, doesn't it make at least a little sense to notice that our nearest planetary neighbor (Mars) is exhibiting some of the same symptoms? (Oh yeah I forgot, you didn't want to talk about that.............)

No, it doesn't make much sense, really. Mars and the Earth are quite dissimilar, both in distance from Sol, atmosphere, composition, etc.; trying to draw meaningful scientific comparisons based upon some random corrollary data from the two betrays a real lack of understanding the topic of Astronomy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Then, even if we grant that a warming trend seems to be occurring, doesn't it make at least a little sense to notice that our nearest planetary neighbor (Mars) is exhibiting some of the same symptoms? (Oh yeah I forgot, you didn't want to talk about that.............)

No, it doesn't make much sense, really. Mars and the Earth are quite dissimilar, both in distance from Sol, atmosphere, composition, etc.; trying to draw meaningful scientific comparisons based upon some random corrollary data from the two betrays a real lack of understanding the topic of Astronomy.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense to look at Mars as part of the system related to the sun, which likely varies slightly in terms of solar energy emitted. Most everything in nature is not perfectly static, by day, by week, by month, by year, by decade, and so on. Virtually everything in nature is cyclical. The sun and the energy emitted of course is part of nature. You cannot pick one factor out of say a dozen factors that may affect the climate, then assume that the other 11 factors are perfectly static when the evidence indicates otherwise, then make conclusions based on the variations or observations of the one factor you happen to pick out as your pet project to illustrate an assumption. That is very poor science.

By the way, I haven't read all of the dozens of pages of debate here, but to eliminate the argument of the accuracy of surface temperature readings, how about the trends of atmospheric measurements? Such info. has probably already been pointed out, but just in case not:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

The data does not seem very convincing for global warming.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know