Jump to content

Give me your opinions about global warming


Recommended Posts

Indeed! Inow not understanding how much temperature will have surpassed well in excess of 1C fluctuations since 65E6 years ago, is its own rebuttal.

 

Yes It will be fine! It will be fine for evolution! It will be fine for everyone but you guys who are ignorant to mass extinctions throughout transitions from and toward iceages and mini-iceages.

 

Huh? Are you being randomly sarcastic, are you actually arguing both sides of the issue here, or just spewing nonsense?

 

iNow's understanding (of whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of your "rebuttal" of 1veedo's statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To 1veedo

 

One of the real problems in these discussions is that there is often enormous misunderstanding. I have had to tell people on many occasions that they were 'putting words in my mouth'. I am sure I do it to other people also, and it is a normal human error.

 

If you believe that I deny many factors in global climate change, then you are under the same misunderstanding. I thought I had carefully always used words such as 'dominant influence', or 'major factor.'

 

From 1976 to the present, anthropogenic greenhouse gases were the dominant influence driving climate change. Before 1955, changes in sunspot activity were the dominant influence.

 

And your statement that the world today would be colder than 150 years ago without those AGGs is not likely to be correct. As I have pointed out, sunspot activity is at a level that is the highest for 8000 years. The world would be a bit cooler than at present without AGGs, but would still be warmer than 150 years ago, due to the much higher sunspot activity.

 

For a long time around the 19th/20th century, CO2 grew at a level of about 0.15 ppm per year. Today, it is growing at about ten times that amount. The greenhouse effect of an increase of 0.15 ppm per year is pretty minimal. However, the warming effect of record high levels of sunspot activity is substantial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the hell do you assume such precision? 65E6 years back would require estimates of temperature through geological records! You guys remind me of the museum joke' date=' with the 850,000,001 year old fossil on display.

 

http://www.jokes.net/accountantvisit...torymuseum.htm[/quote']I'm not sure exactly how they did it. The error range is pretty large though. 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years. That is not a lot of precision and is precisely why I was discussing in terms of order of magnitude.

And your statement that the world today would be colder than 150 years ago without those AGGs is not likely to be correct.
Several studies indicate this. You can look in Climate Change: The Scientific Basis for instance.
The world would be a bit cooler than at present without AGGs, but would still be warmer than 150 years ago, due to the much higher sunspot activity.
You have to look at nets here. There are other factors in the climate than sunspots, and sunspots haven't been "really high" during this entire period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1veedo said :

 

There are other factors in the climate than sunspots, and sunspots haven't been "really high" during this entire period.

 

No, but they have been 'really high' for the past 70 years. Your comparison was between now and 150 years ago. Sunspots are NOW at an 8000 year high.( As a multi-annual average. I appreciate that they vary over 11 and 22 years). That means they have a warming effect in the current time period that is at an 8000 year high. Thus, to suggest that today would be colder than 150 years ago without the effect of AGGs seems pretty unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly how they did it. The error range is pretty large though. 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years. That is not a lot of precision and is precisely why I was discussing in terms of order of magnitude.

 

What??? Are you a complete idiot? Yo cant calculate error of 8degreesC and then conclude that the climate was less than 1degreeC hotter back then compared to now! Your main calculation has to be a larger figure than your combined error!!! You seriously need to learn some practical Physics skills before spewing nonsense claims.

 

Huh? Are you being randomly sarcastic, are you actually arguing both sides of the issue here, or just spewing nonsense?

 

iNow's understanding (of whatever) has nothing to do with the validity of your "rebuttal" of 1veedo's statement.

No I'm not be sarcastic, Im attempting to illustrate how stupid your type look to the real science community, inow and 1weedo are capitulating well as my lead stooges.:eyebrow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well OK, you've dug up one muppet from an enormous organization:D. As a whole you will find that NASA do not support the outrageous popular culture claims. For one thing, I challenge you or any wacko to find on NASAs websites(the climate and earth science ones in particular) where they even mention it....I often read their site and have never seen one word of endorsement for your cause. It is also of note that a NASA chief(Griffin) was flamed and discredit was thrown against his name earlier this year because he publicly argued with a green activist that science has been taken over by politics in regard to climatology.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

 

Yes and no.

 

The scientists studying global warming are still just doing science. The succession of such information through the public including politics is a different issue. I think the issue gets worse in that regard for a couple of reasons. One being the public I would say on average does not retain high concentrations of understanding about that topic, I mean I don’t even know one person on this board even attending to become a climatologist nor any professional ones. I also don’t even think basic environmental science or understanding is to widely distributed yet in the public.

 

Second is that the issue is a rather large one. Evolution or extinction aside environmental changes do hold the ability to register profound impacts on life. The idea of the planet changing in such a fashion would indeed be massive change. So the gravity of the issue draws in vast amounts of attention in a myriad of forms. It only takes a heat wave or a drought for that matter to hold profound impacts on life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not be sarcastic, Im attempting to illustrate how stupid your type look to the real science community

And you're doing a fine job sir. Keep up the good work. Don't change a thing about your style or approach, and without fail you'll win the hearts and minds of those who know more than you do.

 

 

 

 

Second is that the issue is a rather large one. Evolution or extinction aside environmental changes do hold the ability to register profound impacts on life. The idea of the planet changing in such a fashion would indeed be massive change. So the gravity of the issue draws in vast amounts of attention in a myriad of forms. It only takes a heat wave or a drought for that matter to hold profound impacts on life.

 

This is a good point. People seem to forget that linked to evolution is this interconnection of life... a "chain" as it were... Dare I call it, a "food chain?" ;)

 

 

If you kill your meals to such an extent that there are no more meals, then you have effectively killed yourself and your kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but they have been 'really high' for the past 70 years. Your comparison was between now and 150 years ago. Sunspots are NOW at an 8000 year high.( As a multi-annual average. I appreciate that they vary over 11 and 22 years). That means they have a warming effect in the current time period that is at an 8000 year high. Thus, to suggest that today would be colder than 150 years ago without the effect of AGGs seems pretty unlikely.
Well whether or not you believe it this is what the science indicates. I've given you references a couple times now which indicate temperatures would be slightly cooler today than they were 150 years ago if you remove the human influence. If you don't accept this you're just ignoring the basic data involved.

 

 

edit --

SkepticLance I don't want to accuse you of being dishonest but I just happened across this study from Nature, "How unusual is today’s solar activity?" They reference a study done by Solanki et al which is presumably what you're citing as proof that "Sunspots are NOW at an 8000 year high." (which isn't true)

 

"Solanki et al.1 propose that solar activity dur-ing recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was simi-lar to, or even higher than, that of today."

 

"In any case, and irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not excep-tionally high (Fig. 2). The 14 C results are

broadlyconsistentwithearlierreconstructions based on 10 Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today 11 We conclude that the link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium."

 

And when looking at both Solanki et al and S. K. Solanki et al, they agree "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun." So even the study which claims an 8,000 year high sunspot peak disagrees with your conclusion that this peak has a large role in global warming.

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To 1veedo

 

There is not a dishonest bone in my body!

 

My 8000 year figure came from :

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

 

While I would love to continue this debate, I will, in fact, be absent for the next two weeks. I am taking a two week holiday on a live aboard boat, to go scuba diving in the Rowley Shoals (off Western Australia in the Indian Ocean). For some strange reason, there is no internet cafe! Maybe we can catch up when I get back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you check back, you will find that the only models I have expressed real scepticism about are the global climate models. These are possibly the most complex computer models that humankind has ever tried to set up.

 

Ever heard of BlueBrain?

 

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

 

They're performing a molecular simulation of the mammalian neocortex, using a single CPU for each individual neuron.

 

And hey, guess what, it works

 

[math]complex \neq wrong[/math]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To 1veedo

 

There is not a dishonest bone in my body!

 

My 8000 year figure came from :

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

 

While I would love to continue this debate, I will, in fact, be absent for the next two weeks. I am taking a two week holiday on a live aboard boat, to go scuba diving in the Rowley Shoals (off Western Australia in the Indian Ocean). For some strange reason, there is no internet cafe! Maybe we can catch up when I get back.

If you read that article they are indeed referncing the work done by Solanki et al. It turns out that they were wrong and sunspots are not at an 8000 year high.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To 1veedo

 

Absolute bloody last post before I go on holiday.

 

I am running round like the proverbial dog with tail on fire, and haven't time to read or research it right now. I will take your word for it that the Solanki model was wrong. Shows what happens when you rely on unreliable models!

 

I doubt it matters much to the argument, whether we are at an 8000 year high or a 200 year high, though. Either way, before mid 20th Century, warming/cooling correlates closest to sunspot activity.

 

Sunspot activity actually reached a peak about 1940, and dropped a bit to 1960 - remaining more or less stable (excluding cycles) since. The level of activity is much higher than 150 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it matters much to the argument, whether we are at an 8000 year high or a 200 year high, though. Either way, before mid 20th Century, warming/cooling correlates closest to sunspot activity.

Only if you fail to account for extraneous variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

do you think that it only happen to your place? malaysia also... we actually will having raining season starting from novermber until january (not accurately), and for the first time, one of the state in my country suddenly get flooded. it seems that there is raining almost a week non stop. as i can say, we can guess what we will happen in the future... maybe next time we cannot see anymore the gulf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's an excellent presentation which pulls apart the science and politics of the issue. Very well done. Enjoy.

 

 

 

It is a video of Naomi Oreskes' talk on "The American Denial of Global Warming":

 

The first part ("TRUTH") outlines the history of climate science research, and the unpoliticized acceptance thereof that lasted until the early 1990s. The second part "DENIAL" describes the George C. Marshall Instiute's role in creating confusion and politicizing the issue, using tactics from the cigarette wars.

 

 

 

Here is an index:

 

TRUTH

00:00 Introduction

02:00 Frank Luntz

04:00 2001 IPCC TAR, but many decades of science before

10:30 1957 Suess & Revelle; "Big Greenhouse" in Time Magazine

14:00 1964/65 NAS Science Advisory Committee; President's Science Advisory Committee "In those days, politicians listened to scientists";bipartisanship.

17:30 1970s NRC; JASON; "Charney Report"

23:30 1988 IPCC formed; US National Energy Policy Act; George H. W. Bush

DENIAL

26:30 Why is there denial? Where did it come from?

29:15: 1984 George C. Marshal Institute founded by William Jastrow

Added William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz; S. Fred Singer later. Original goal: Cold War, support Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative from other physicists) Tactics: threaten PBS stations with lawsuits under "Fairness Doctrine" Create uncertainty

36:00 1990, cold war over, switch to other areas [global warming, CFC-ozone, tobacco] No Greenhouse problem, as long as free market allowed to solve!

39:00 1995 IPCC SAR, personal attacks on Ben Santer

42:00 1995 Connection with tobacco, Seitz, tactics Create doubt, do not publish science, but in popular literature, op-eds, Wall Street Journal

53:30 Why? In each case, political views [NO REGULATION, EVER] masked as arguments about science. [People can have whatever political views they want, but the proper place to discuss them is in politics, not by fudging science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.