Select someone in the parties like NDP with Liberal party realism and funding management of the award winning economist for the fund.
<50% of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
So this may be hair off topic but what the heck
Anyone here remember the hole in the ozone layer?
It was sort of a precurser to global warming several years back.
Anyhow there I was stuck on the northern most tip of Elsmere Island.
The project I was there for was on hold for a week or two.
So I was told to bunk up with all the scientists working on the "hole in the ozone layer"
We were in a semi abandoned research station..one of those old arctic dome buildings with 3 foot thick foam filled doors.
So in this little station there were two beer fridges complete with an honour pay system.
The fridges were kept fully stocked at all times.
There was some pretty serious drinking going on there....nightly.
I still get blinding headaches just thinking about it.
Sooo.... I did an awful lot of chatting with this international team of leading scientists.
The "hole" was a big topic.
AS far as I could tell after studying this thing intensely they had no clue what was happening.
When they thought it was going here..it went there.
When they thought it was going to get bigger...it got smaller.
Really started to annoy some of them and they got a little testy about discussing the "hole".
It's like trying to predict the weather more than a week in advance. In some cases we just dont have the ability to predict it. Maybe one day in the future.
So now we can predict global warming....in effect the weather of the far off future?
I hope it doesnt turn out like the "hole".
Anyone here remember the hole in the ozone layer?
It was sort of a precurser to global warming several years back.
Anyhow there I was stuck on the northern most tip of Elsmere Island.
The project I was there for was on hold for a week or two.
So I was told to bunk up with all the scientists working on the "hole in the ozone layer"
We were in a semi abandoned research station..one of those old arctic dome buildings with 3 foot thick foam filled doors.
So in this little station there were two beer fridges complete with an honour pay system.
The fridges were kept fully stocked at all times.
There was some pretty serious drinking going on there....nightly.
I still get blinding headaches just thinking about it.
Sooo.... I did an awful lot of chatting with this international team of leading scientists.
The "hole" was a big topic.
AS far as I could tell after studying this thing intensely they had no clue what was happening.
When they thought it was going here..it went there.
When they thought it was going to get bigger...it got smaller.
Really started to annoy some of them and they got a little testy about discussing the "hole".
It's like trying to predict the weather more than a week in advance. In some cases we just dont have the ability to predict it. Maybe one day in the future.
So now we can predict global warming....in effect the weather of the far off future?
I hope it doesnt turn out like the "hole".
The words are all there, but it's just not the same as listening to him say it personally. Also the video lets you hear the environuts trying to shout him down.
It would be interesting to see the graph depicting the period from the beginning of the century to now, but what this instance shows is quite revealing. It's more than enough to establish that a 30% drop in man-made CO2 emissions had no effect on atmospheric CO2. You're trying to avoid the obvious.
For some reason you seem to think that the laws of physics and biology change according to public opinion?8O
There's this to start with.
Somewhere I saw that the US Federal budget provides 6 billion per year to alarmists. I'll post links if I find it.
The accusation was that the "deniers" had been paid by the fossil fuel industry.
It's far from obvious, and that's assuming I trust Hertzfeld's assertion of a 30% global drop of man-made emissions, which I don't. One post you say how complex the climate system is, now it's so plain that we can infer things with ease....
For some reason you think I talk about public opinion rather than those rules of physics and biology. It's simple ecology to realize that the two times are vastly different. How the system responds will be different.
A link referencing a piece from another Newsweek, and then they throw in their little $50 billion op-ed tidbit. Not convincing at all.
And entirely relevant to this conversation is how much those industries have received in favourable government interventions, since they are using these junk pieces as a footing.
Ya know what? You should actually read the article I posted that this is in reference to. The 30% drop was at the beginning of the great depression, you know, back in '29.
Well, since I'm not talking about the climate system in this case, and since you claim that CO2 increase causes temp. increase, this makes it very obvious that you're wrong. Almost as obvious as that graph of the last 400,000 years....
Let see....You're claiming that CO2 emissions are causing the temp to warm. But 7000 years ago the temp was much warmer. So what caused the temp to be so warm back then? The same thing, perhaps, that caused it to be warmer than now back during the medieval climate optimum? Seems reasonable. Seems reasonable to think that the same thing could cause it to warm up now, the things you say aren't sufficient to warm the climate so it must be CO2 from humans. But there was eensy teensy minimal fossil CO2 from humans back then. Yes the two times are vastly different, as far as human contributions are concerned. Yet the system responded just the same. It's a very valid comparison, kinda like a double-blind test.
Not on it's own, it's all I had handy at the moment (I'm a bit pressed for time). It's fairly common knowledge that governments are huge funders of the doomsayers. I don't doubt it would be fairly easy to ascertain how much western governments are doling out to them.
I would imagine that we could include all kinds of business, organizations, environmental groups etc. who receive largess from the gov't. However, the topic at hand is how much the "deniers" are getting from the fossil industries, not how much the fossil industries get from gov't or sales or anything else. Your claim is that the "deniers" are only doing what they are paid to do, but the truth is the vast majority of them haven't received a dime from them, and never will. By trying to direct attention away from that to the fossil industries themselves, you're attempting to put up a strawman that is irrelevant.
Do you even have a link which shows the drop in anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gas emissions? You are talking about the climate system, greenhouse gases play a large role, no matter how hard you try to show they are not.
I've already explained to you many things which are different now from 7000 years ago. This is indeed part of that oversimplification I was talking about on your part. I've never argued there aren't natural perturbations, and that's what has caused past warming and cooling, no doubt about that. You're saying it seems reasonable that the same perturbations could be causing the warming now, that evidence is lacking. Seems reasonable that large scale changes in land use and greenhouse gas concentrations could be what's causing the warming, and there is evidence for that.
I'm not setting up any strawman. It is entirely relevant how much money the fossil fuel and related industries receive from government funds. They have set up organizations and paid scientists for "science" which supports their position. I'm not directing attention away from that industry at all.
Oh, if we're talking about the climate system in general, yes they play a significant role, moderating the extremes of temperature variations, contributing slightly to mean temperatures and generally making life possible. But as far as climate change is concerned, they don't play a big enough role to have much effect, and the anthropological contribution is so minor in comparison as to be inconsequential.
Actually, no, the evidence appears to support that, but it doesn't fit the doomsday scenario so it's downplayed or ignored.
If you're referring to cities, yes, heat islands are produced that change climate locally, but not much effect globally, if any.
And as I've shown, the evidence contradicts the GHG concentrations as a cause of climate change.
It may be relevant to the discussion in general, but the point being argued was that the doomsayers claim that the deniers have received mega-bucks to make their claims, and I pointed out that the amount they received (if any) was quite small, while the doomsayers themselves had received the much bigger payments. You avoided that point altogether and tried to steer the debate over to how much the oil companies themselves had received, something that I won't even debate since that's not the point in question. You're dodging the point and trying to change the subject, which indicates to me that you can't dispute my point.
But I have no time to continue this.
Kindly give me your solution to the problem as you see it. (I'm pretending that you're correct) Tell us what you would suggest to prevent the certain calamity you see looming. I asked the question on "7 Ways to Save The World" but I haven't seen your reply yet, or anyone else's. Strange, you all say we have to do something. Tell me, what should we do?
Science is not accomplished by consensus. Science is accomplished by clearly labeled methods and measurements. Science should be clear so that it can be reproduced and understood.
When it is unclear how measurements were made, when it is unclear what models were used, when it is unclear how many knobs a model had, then the results are considered spurious and other scientists must do better.
CO2 measurements were not very accurate back in 1929. In order to believe anything about a statement made about a shock in the CO2 emissions you first have to figure out how valid the inferences are on the emissions at that time. Then you have to understand what phenomenon is driving the warming. An integral effect will smooth over any shock in the data. One should not expect proportionality in all aspects of the differential calculus.
In order to make actual statements about the climate outside of Bayesian regressions on past observations, one must have access to massive climate models and must perform them hundreds of time. Very few people have access to this infrastructure, and the people that do are the ones that say the important things about climate change. Here is one example.
Back to the example at hand: "[SIZE=-1]The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop." There is no clear indication where this estimate came from, so one cannot interpret it in a scientific way. Also, the language used, "... led by the mightiest power, the USA ..." indicates that at best it is a selection bias, and at worst plucked out of the air. Without knowing how the CO2 production levels were inferred (because they weren't measured at that time) and where the information for the inference came from, it is simply crack pot science and not environmental science.
[/SIZE]
When it is unclear how measurements were made, when it is unclear what models were used, when it is unclear how many knobs a model had, then the results are considered spurious and other scientists must do better.
CO2 measurements were not very accurate back in 1929. In order to believe anything about a statement made about a shock in the CO2 emissions you first have to figure out how valid the inferences are on the emissions at that time. Then you have to understand what phenomenon is driving the warming. An integral effect will smooth over any shock in the data. One should not expect proportionality in all aspects of the differential calculus.
In order to make actual statements about the climate outside of Bayesian regressions on past observations, one must have access to massive climate models and must perform them hundreds of time. Very few people have access to this infrastructure, and the people that do are the ones that say the important things about climate change. Here is one example.
Back to the example at hand: "[SIZE=-1]The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop." There is no clear indication where this estimate came from, so one cannot interpret it in a scientific way. Also, the language used, "... led by the mightiest power, the USA ..." indicates that at best it is a selection bias, and at worst plucked out of the air. Without knowing how the CO2 production levels were inferred (because they weren't measured at that time) and where the information for the inference came from, it is simply crack pot science and not environmental science.
[/SIZE]
I may have a link somewhere in all my info, but I haven't had time to search. So no link at this time. However, it's well known that emissions dropped in the US during the last recession in the '90's, so it's only logical to extrapolate that to the great depression.
Well, there certainly is much more land cleared now that 7000 years ago, but that doesn't correlate with the known climate variations for the last 1000 years, so I doubt it is all that great a factor.
I wish you would pass that on to Al Gore, David Suzuki, the IPCC and all the other doomsayers who tout consensus.
Actually it isn't science at all, and wasn't intended as science, but rather the reporting of an event. Where the info was taken from is not known. However, the USA was arguably the largest emitter back then as well as now, and since when the US went into depression it dragged the world down into depression with it, and since we know from more recent experience that drops in economic activity result in drops in emissions, we can be sure that world emissions did indeed drop substantially. Just how much is a matter for conjecture if we don't have the data. Whether or not 30% is verifiable at this point, I don't know. I don't have the data. But there most definitely was a drop in emissions, but not a corresponding drop in atmospheric concentrations.
Trees returning that air? I don't think you fully comprehend the system. Trees produce O2 when they grow and use carbon. When they die, they either decompose or burn and return the carbon to the air. It's a system basically in equilibrium. And there are more trees today than there were a century ago in N. America.
No. And not next week, or next month, or next year, or next decade, or next century. But if temps drop continuously for a hundred years, CO2 levels will follow about 800 years later.
Extra,
In one breath you tell me you have the link somewhere, but can't be bothered to find it. Then you tell Niflmir, you have no idea where that comes from, and no way to say whether or not those claims are true. Making the claim of a drop in 30% is obviously something to be contested, and you're relying on crap from blogs without any links...
Land-use change is nothing to scoff at. These changes effect albedo, gas exchange, and the sources and size of carbon sinks. Our current land use changes result in a flux of 1.20- 1.59 Pg of Carbon from deforestation alone.
In one breath you tell me you have the link somewhere, but can't be bothered to find it. Then you tell Niflmir, you have no idea where that comes from, and no way to say whether or not those claims are true. Making the claim of a drop in 30% is obviously something to be contested, and you're relying on crap from blogs without any links...
Land-use change is nothing to scoff at. These changes effect albedo, gas exchange, and the sources and size of carbon sinks. Our current land use changes result in a flux of 1.20- 1.59 Pg of Carbon from deforestation alone.
I can ensure you that they know this and that they are hardly doomsayers. There is enough evidence at this point however to, using bayesian reasoning, convince anyone with a non-zero prior of the reality of global warming. One might and should call this sort of thing consensus, but this is not the conventional sense of consensus.
So, what you are saying is that the 8 trillion tons of CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution won't have it's full effect for another five or six hundred years.
Temperatures have risen, and CO2 levels have risen, and they continue to rise, seemingly, without your 800 year lag.
No, I told you I might have one somewhere but don't have time to look for it.
A drop is a given. The amount is not supported. That's what I told Niflimir.
Do you deliberately intend to misinterpret me or is that just carelessness on your part?
Would that be the deforestation to provide palm plantations for palm oil biofuel? Here we re-forest what we log unless it's converted to other uses such as agriculture and/or urban sprawl. And in N. America we now have more trees than we had 100 years ago so it couldn't have that much effect over the last century.