FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Global Warming Proof (Secrets Unveiled)





Nick2008
Quote:

Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.

The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week.


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration

These are astonishing pictures I must say.
Indi
You know, you should really use better sources, and avoid partisan political hysteria. This has nothing to do with a Bush cover up. Some of the data just released is from before the Bush administration. The reason it was secret was because they didn't want to give up the locations and imaging capabilities of their spy satellites. Only a handful of scientists had the clearance to see the images over the years, and they released their conclusions, but couldn't release the images or raw data. A week or so ago, National Academy of Sciences member Thorsten Markus spearheaded a formal recommendation to the Obama administration that the data was important enough that it should be released, and to hell with the security considerations. And so it happened.

The raw data, and several other images, can be found here.

Stop making climate change a political issue. It's much too important for that nonsense.
farmerdave
A better article, not so conspiracy oriented, pretty much just reporting facts:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

(I definitely agree with the first comment at the bottom of the article - people who believe in climate change will try to spin any evidence we have that way.)

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute's International Conferance on Climate Change, there is a ton of information here from a lot of more-than-qualified scientists and individuals. Follow links to audio messages and presentations:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

Lastly, if you're not aware of how unreliable the media is and how much they love stories of climate caused mass devastation, etc., please read the April 28, 1975 Newsweek article entitled "The Cooling World" by Peter Gwynn. Download and save this pdf copy, print it off, and post it on your wall as a reminder of how the media is frequently not so concerned with the facts as much as their agenda (whatever it may be). http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This article (which I have not read, so, therefore, neither endorse nor discredit) references two other articles from the same time period on global cooling from Time Magazine and the New York Times, other worthwhile reads, I'm sure!
http://www.edf.org/documents/5972_GlobalCooling_FactSheet.pdf
Indi
farmerdave wrote:
A better article, not so conspiracy oriented, pretty much just reporting facts:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

(I definitely agree with the first comment at the bottom of the article - people who believe in climate change will try to spin any evidence we have that way.)

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute's International Conferance on Climate Change, there is a ton of information here from a lot of more-than-qualified scientists and individuals. Follow links to audio messages and presentations:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

Lastly, if you're not aware of how unreliable the media is and how much they love stories of climate caused mass devastation, etc., please read the April 28, 1975 Newsweek article entitled "The Cooling World" by Peter Gwynn. Download and save this pdf copy, print it off, and post it on your wall as a reminder of how the media is frequently not so concerned with the facts as much as their agenda (whatever it may be). http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This article (which I have not read, so, therefore, neither endorse nor discredit) references two other articles from the same time period on global cooling from Time Magazine and the New York Times, other worthwhile reads, I'm sure!
http://www.edf.org/documents/5972_GlobalCooling_FactSheet.pdf

See, this is exactly the kind of crap that gets dumped on the world when a scientific issue gets politicized. -_- It's hard to even know where to begin to debunk the nonsense here, but i'll try to take it step by step.

farmerdave wrote:
A better article, not so conspiracy oriented, pretty much just reporting facts:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

To say that article is "just reporting facts" is as dishonest as saying the 9/11 terrorists were "just flying planes". Most of the facts in that article are correct, yes, but the entire context of those facts has been conveniently forgotten. The Earth's climate is not a simple beast, and global temperature increase can, does and will result in areas of decreased temperature. It is a delicately balanced nonlinear dynamic system, and when you upset the balance, you are going to see things swinging both ways, not just always increasing in temperature.

Or to put it another way, nothing about decreasing temperatures in certain areas of the Antarctic contradicts global warming... and, in fact, some of these things were predicted (although i don't know if that in particular was predicted). That's one of the reasons scientists have stopped using the phrase "global warming" - because half-wits keep failing to understand that global warming means on average and over time, and that in specific areas, in the short term, you will see much more severe winters. But the general trend will be an increase in the average global temperature... which is very real.

farmerdave wrote:
(I definitely agree with the first comment at the bottom of the article - people who believe in climate change will try to spin any evidence we have that way.)

Er... did you read the comments at the bottom? Or did you get different comments than i got. The three comments that i saw were:
  • One saying that the antarctic ice isn't melting away as fast as "the popular media would have you believe"... which may or may not be true, i don't know. i don't turn to popular media for scientific fact. Anyone that does that is a fool. But the antarctic is is melting away as fast as climate change models predict it will.
  • One pointing out what i tried to explain briefly above: that "global warming" means on average, over time. And that areas of cooling will be expected in the short term.
  • One pointing out that none of this contradicts global warming (and mentions that it was predicted, which i didn't know).
In other words, of the three comments that i can see, two say that this is an interesting bit of data, but is not only not disproving global warming, it was even predicted by global warming theories... and the third says nothing except "don't believe media hype", to which i say: "ya, duh".

farmerdave wrote:
If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute's International Conferance on Climate Change, there is a ton of information here from a lot of more-than-qualified scientists and individuals. Follow links to audio messages and presentations:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

Do you know what the Heartland Institute is?

Seriously man, go to a science organization if you want science data. Which one, you ask? Pick one. It doesn't matter. Every single scientific body of note that talks about global warming says it is real, and that most of it is human-caused. Yes, every single one (since 2007 - one of the last holdouts was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, surprise surprise, and even now they try to be as vague about it as possible). NO scientific body disputes global warming. NO scientific body disputes that most of it is human-caused.

The fact that this is cutting edge science means that there is bound to be dissent, and there is. But all of the dissent is about how much global warming is happening (and how much is human-caused). There is NO dissent on the fact that it is happening. Just on how much.

farmerdave wrote:
Lastly, if you're not aware of how unreliable the media is and how much they love stories of climate caused mass devastation, etc., please read the April 28, 1975 Newsweek article entitled "The Cooling World" by Peter Gwynn. Download and save this pdf copy, print it off, and post it on your wall as a reminder of how the media is frequently not so concerned with the facts as much as their agenda (whatever it may be). http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This article (which I have not read, so, therefore, neither endorse nor discredit) references two other articles from the same time period on global cooling from Time Magazine and the New York Times, other worthwhile reads, I'm sure!
http://www.edf.org/documents/5972_GlobalCooling_FactSheet.pdf

Good grief.

Do you have any idea how fundamentally dishonest it is to dump on the media for being dishonest or skewed about the facts of global warming... then turn around and offer opinions from:
  • A politicial think tank.
  • 35 year old science.
  • 30 year old articles in the popular media. ^_^;


i mean... seriously? ^_^;

(And then... the most bizarre thing of all... that last article, which you said you didn't read, pretty much says what i just finished saying: your sources are crap, although "global cooling" appeared in the popular press global warming was still the scientific consensus even then, and global warming is real. ^_^; WTF? You might want to actually check your sources in the future.)

People, get your science from scientists. Not politicians and not 30 year old newspaper articles.
deanhills
Thanks for the education Indi, this has been a great learning curve. Where would we get our facts for saving the environment though? The little I know I have picked up from the news, and it would appear that Governments are not doing enough to curb pollution of the air, and that this is a factor in global warming, which in turn has serious consequences for the environment. It is even been mentioned that the increase in warming will result in certain islands disappearing as well as the coast lines changing.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Thanks for the education Indi, this has been a great learning curve. Where would we get our facts for saving the environment though? The little I know I have picked up from the news, and it would appear that Governments are not doing enough to curb pollution of the air, and that this is a factor in global warming, which in turn has serious consequences for the environment. It is even been mentioned that the increase in warming will result in certain islands disappearing as well as the coast lines changing.

You can get your facts from the Internet, just check your sources. For example, to satisfy my own curiosity, i googled "climate change facts" to see what would pop up. This is what i got:

  • www.climatechangefacts.info - not a science organization (and, incidentally, a global warming denier, from what i could tell)
  • www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm - not a science organization (a conservative news site, and another global warming denier)
  • www.thegreatwarming.com/pdf/ClimateChangeFactSheet.pdf - not a science organization (site for a movie about climate change by Hollywood people, global warming supporter)
  • www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/ - not a science organization (Belgian non-profit organization, global warming supporter)
  • cupe.ca/climate-change/Climate_Change_Facts - not a science organization (Canadian public workers union, global warming supporter)
  • news.nationalgeographic.com/.../1206_041206_global_warming.html - not a science organization (National Geographic Society, global warming supporter)
  • www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm - not a science organization (didn't read, but it's the Pew Centre, so... global warming supporter)
  • apefarewellcanada.ca/resources-facts.php - (some Canadian advocacy group, global warming supporter)

  • royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 - A SCIENCE ORGANIZATION!!! The Royal Society (UK). Check it out. (And of course, global warming supporter.)


So, go ahead and use the Internet. Just make sure you're getting information from a reliable source. This is a science topic, so go to a science organization.

i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results. Everything about this controversy is political, and the dishonesty is abhorrent: the only question being debated is "what should we do about climate change?", not "is climate change happening?" as the politicians pretend. They just don't have the courage to stand up in front of their constituents and state their argument honestly: "Yes, we know that climate change is happening, but frankly, it's going to hurt the poor equatorial countries, really, not us, so... ****** them. And sure, we could change our economy to a non-fossil fuel-based economy, and we could even use our current economic strength to do it first thus giving our country the jump on the world economy for decades to come, but... eh, that's just too much work. Most of us industrial leaders will be dead within the next 30 or so years, before the major problems start, so... ****** the next generation, too."

And the most infuriating part about it - aside from the blatant denial of science - is that the controversy makes no damned sense. There's no logical reason to deny global warming, or to refuse to move to a non-fossil fuel-based economy. Good grief, here are just some of the benefits:
  • Less reliance on unstable Middle Eastern countries for oil.
  • Most modern, clean power sources are far more efficient than fossil fuel-powered ones.
  • Cities that aren't smoggy, and that smell nice.
  • Building a strong technological industry at home that the rest of the world will need, setting yourself up to be the "Middle East" of the post-fossil fuel world.
  • Stimulating research and development, which can generally only be done in first world countries, but that third world countries will need.
  • etc. etc.
And what are the benefits of doing nothing, and denying climate change?
farmerdave
Indi wrote:
i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results.


Indi,

I have a few questions for you, but please allow me to start with just one.

What are your scientific credentials?

David
Bikerman
farmerdave wrote:
Indi wrote:
i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results.


Indi,

I have a few questions for you, but please allow me to start with just one.

What are your scientific credentials?

David
That is a rather pointless question in this environment. This is an anonymous system, like most internet messageboards. Now, obviously some people know each other - I don't make any particular effort to hide my identity, for example, and I use the same nickname on my home forums where anyone who so wishes can discover my real name and where I live (and, no, I have no scientific 'credentials' other than my teaching degrees, and a lot of technical certificates in IT/systems management - so I'm not a scientist at all - as I frequently remind people).
There are some places where credentials are required, or at least assumed - some of the physics boards I occasionally 'drop in' on are mainly used by students and faculty at various universities, and you had better not post unless you have something intelligent and relevant to say in physics, and you can back it up with your own research papers. Here on Frih it doesn't matter so much. We are not trying to operate a peer-review science board, or a collaborative research board - just general 'chat' boards.

You will know, from Indi's postings, that he is very science literate, as well as being articulate and well read. If Indi wants to tell you more then that is up to him - but how would you check? And, how would Indi or I check any claims you made in that area?
I think the best thing is to judge by what Indi (and I) post. That is how I judge a contribution on these boards - not some questionable claims of academic bona-fides. If you want to start an argument over whose qualifications are better, then the whole thing will quickly descend into farce.

If we really need some top scientific input to a particular discussion then I'm sure that, between a few of us, we can rustle-up plenty of doctors and post-doc theorists and researchers - I know a few and I bet Indi does too. It would, however, make the boards unreadable for anyone below graduate level.
deanhills
farmerdave wrote:
Indi wrote:
i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results.


Indi,

I have a few questions for you, but please allow me to start with just one.

What are your scientific credentials?

David

In addition to Chris's comments, perhaps you can read previous postings by Indi (I often do that when I want to research some of the subjects in the Philosophy and Religion Forum). For me, the credentials that count are the ones that come from the actual debate of the topics more than the qualifications and experience of individual debaters. It would be a sum total of evidence of knowledge of the subject, providing evidence of the subject matter, and debating it systematically and logically. A person could be a very learned Professor with enormous credentials, and still fail at a debate. You may find someone with very little credentials, except a very passionate and open mind, with very bright insights as well as knowledge of the subject, winning a debate.
Indi
i must confess to being a little bit morbidly curious about what kind of credentials one needs to say "get your science from scientists, not political activists".

i'm also morbidly curious why my scientific credentials get challenged when i say "get your science from scientists, not political activists" and "no major scientific organization disputes that global warming is happening" - the former statement being simply a rational statement, and the latter being something that anyone can find out if they bother to research the topic whether they're a scientist or not... neither of those things are scientific statements - but you didn't bother to check the scientific credentials of the Heartland Institute when they made a highly controversial claim about scientific fact.

Like i told deanhills, you don't need to be a scientist to get good information about modern science. You just need to be smart enough to ask a scientist, and not a political organization.
deanhills
I was thinking about this discussion over the weekend Indi, when news broke about a research study on glaciers melting faster as some kind of proof of global warming. What do you think about this study, is it valid?
Quote:
CNN) -- U.S. scientists monitoring shrinking glaciers in Washington and Alaska reported this week that a major meltdown is under way.

The Gulcana glacier in Alaska is one of three glaciers considered a benchmark by the U.S. Geological Survey.

A 50-year government study found that the world's glaciers are melting at a rapid and alarming rate. The ongoing study is the latest in a series of reports that found glaciers worldwide are melting faster than anyone had predicted they would just a few years ago. It offers a clear indication of an accelerating climate change and warming earth, according to the authors.

Since 1959, the U.S. Geological Survey, which published the study on its Web site, has been tracking the movements of the South Cascade glacier in Washington and the Wolverine and Gulcana glaciers in Alaska. The three glaciers are considered "benchmarks" for the conditions of thousands of other glaciers because they're in different climate zones and at various elevations.

"These changes are taking place in Washington State and Alaska in three different climate regimes," said Edward Josberger, the lead researcher on the study with the USGS Washington Water Science Center in Tacoma, Washington. "So we feel it's definitely something going on, probably on a global scale, and of course, if you look at other such measurements around the world and put it all together, yes, glaciers are retreating and retreating rapidly."


Source:http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/07/global.warming/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
SonLight
Deanhills,

I checked google with the words, "South Cascade glacier in Washington and the Wolverine and Gulcana glaciers in Alaska", and after looking at the result, I'm not as optimistic as Indi seems to be about finding legitimate scientific sites by searching. The USGS site, the only scientific orgainization I noticed, was 49th on the list! I will admit that the terms were somewhat biased toward the current media cycle, but that's often true unless you do some good research before choosing your terms.

The fact that it's the USGS says they're real scientists (or else we're in more trouble than i had imagined). There's just the question of accurate reporting, and the site should fave the facts, so you can control for that somewhat if you can read science reports at all.

The site says:

Quote:
Winter snow accumulation and summer snow, firn, and ice melt were measured at South Cascade Glacier, Washington, to determine the winter and net balances for the 2000 and 2001 balance years. In 2000, the winter balance, averaged over the glacier, was 3.32 meters, and the net balance was 0.38 meters. The winter balance was the ninth highest since the record began in 1959. The net balance was greater than 33 of the 41 years since 1959. In 2001, the winter balance was 1.90 meters, and net balance was -1.57 meters. The winter balance was lower than all but 4 years since 1959, and the net balance was more negative than all but 5 other years. Runoff was measured from the glacier basin and an adjacent non-glacierized basin. Air temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind speed and solar radiation were measured nearby. Ice displacements were measured for the 1998-2001 period.


which I interpret roughly as "yeah, it's meliting" -- but a little more reading of the actual detailed report, and comparing with a couple of other studies (which are probably cited), seems in order before forming an opinion. The abstract mentioned that three different types of glaciers are sampled, but I didn't drill down to the balance of changes at each of the three sites.
Indi
SonLight hit the nail on the head. The fact that it's on CNN means nothing. Check the sources: in this case the USGS.

News outlets tend to spin the stories science people give them to make them more dramatic, and sometimes they muck up the truth in the process. They don't usually mean to be deceptive... usually... but they don't understand what they're saying, so they take a scientist's words, repeat them in a way that's slightly different for more dramatic effect, and don't realize that they've changed the entire message. i remember a vivid example of that a few years back - several news sources repeated a story that scientists had broken the speed of light. Well... yes and no. The truth was far, far more complex, but in the end they hadn't really broken the speed of light.

On the other hand, reading the actual science sources can be boring as all hell. Scientists tend to be very cautious in their conclusions - not like the scientists you see in movies that make grandiose and dramatic conclusions with unswerving certainty. A real scientist won't even tell you the colour of his pants without looking down to check first, and even then will give you a range of uncertainty and admit they may be wrong about even wearing pants. That can be really frustrating when all you want is a clear answer with some certainty behind it.

So sometimes if you can't find a good science source that has a clear article about the concept, event or finding you're interested in, you have to fall back on the next best thing - find a forum where lots of good scientists hang around and ask there. Frihost is actually not bad for that! (Kudos go to Bikerman for that.) But there are far, far better ones. Ask Bikerman, he can tell you a few.
aningbo
we are all gonna die soon...

wow.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
SonLight hit the nail on the head. The fact that it's on CNN means nothing. Check the sources: in this case the USGS.
USGS has the exact same information on their Website. Refer article:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2277
Quote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A report on long-term glacier measurements released today by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar shows that glaciers are dramatically changing in mass, length and thickness as a result of climate change. Over the past 50 years, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have monitored the melting of Alaska’s Gulkana and Wolverine Glaciers and Washington’s South Cascade Glacier, yielding the longest such records in North America.

“This report we are releasing today is great example of the science and data our Department has gathered over the past 50 years,” said Secretary Salazar. “This information is helpful in tackling the effects of climate change and it is exactly the kind of science we need to invest in to measure and mitigate the dangerous impacts of climate change.”

Glacier shrinkage has global impacts, including sea level rise that threatens low-lying and coastal communities. Smaller glaciers will also result in a decrease of water runoff, and impacts are especially important during the dry late summer when other water sources are limited.

“There is no doubt that most mountain glaciers are shrinking worldwide in response to a warming climate. Measuring changes in glacier mass provides direct insight to the link between glaciers and climate, ultimately helping predict glacier response to anticipated climate conditions,” said USGS scientist Edward Josberger.

The three glaciers monitored in this study are known as benchmark glaciers. They are widely spaced, represent different climate regimes, and can be used to understand the thousands of other glaciers in nearby regions.

USGS scientists study glacier behavior during different seasons, including summer melt and winter snow accumulation, as well as their response to both short and long term climate variations. This allows for more detailed insight regarding how and when the climate is changing.

“In addition to these three glaciers, more than 99 percent of America’s thousands of large glaciers have long documented records of an overall shrinkage as climate warms,” said USGS scientist Bruce Molnia. “Many people are surprised to learn that a few glaciers are thickening and advancing. These glaciers are responding to unusual and unique local conditions, including having large, high elevation areas where snow accumulates. Except for these anomalous few , most of America’s glaciers are shrinking and these exceptions emphasize how natural variability is an inherent part of a complex Earth system.”

You can view a video of South Cascade Glacier aerial photos from 1928 to 2006 at the USGS Washington Water Science Center Web site.

For more information on this study of glacier change in Washington and Alaska, visit Fact Sheet 2009-3046, Fifty-Year Record of Glacier Change Reveals Shifting Climate in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, USA.

More information about the USGS Benchmark Glacier Program can be found online.
Chinmoy
who needs proof? we all know it is happening alarmingly. But are we doing anything about it?
ocalhoun
Chinmoy wrote:
But are we doing anything about it?

Do we need to do anything about it?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Chinmoy wrote:
But are we doing anything about it?

Do we need to do anything about it?
A good start will probably be to check up on too-many-people-per-square-mile-of-earth. I think this is on top of the list of priorities, to work on getting the world population numbers down. Too many consumers of resources. Resources that are getting less and less for quality living. The need for healthcare insurance, and inability to get legislation through because of its high cost must also testify to people who are getting sicker than what they used to be. Food is not the same it used to be.
Nick2008
I agree that overpopulation is a serious threat in the next 100 years. But really thinking about it, there's not much we can do.

With people trying to stop abortion and even laws being broken about the amount of children you can have, it's only going to get worse.

It's only a matter of time before we starting having radicals going on killing sprees to bring the world population down.

Yep, the future of the Earth is bright.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
It's only a matter of time before we starting having radicals going on killing sprees to bring the world population down.
Wow, I have not thought about this before, but that sounds just about right! Can imagine biological warfare in this, or artificial virusses Question
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
or artificial virusses Question

Twisted Evil
Yeah, I can imagine that.
I've considered finding a virus that quickly results in sterilization, and combining it with the common cold, to make it highly infectious.

Spread at a major airport, it would be unstoppable before anybody realized what was going on.
coolclay
Then the human race well wipe itself out and the entire Earth will be much better off.

But in all seriousness some of the people that post from each sides of this topic really just piss me off too.

If people would just stop using the buzzword "global warming" we can get the first misconception out of the way. And that's that the entire world will just all get warmer. If the thermohaline circulation continues to breakdown at the same rate or higher then it currently is then there will be many areas around the world which depend on ocean currents to warm the localized climate that will get much cooler. Great Britain is a great example it's at almost the same parallel as northern Canada, and yet much warmer. This is due to the Gulf Stream, but because of the influx of freshwater from the melting glaciers the thermohaline circulation is slowing down, this has been measured and recorded by NOAA.

I could keep going but if people really wanted more truly scientific information rather then biased BS from both sides they could find it on their own. The fact is people don't want to. They would rather have other people tell them what to think. Sad thing is that's the majority. I'm out....Great posts Btw Indi
Nick2008
coolclay wrote:

If people would just stop using the buzzword "global warming" we can get the first misconception out of the way.


Agreed there. A lot of places will in fact get colder not warmer. "Climate Change" in general is a more proper definition.

The only reason people believe that the earth is warming, is because of the reality in ice melting, which in theory would make the sea levels rise.

But some places will get colder, and is there the possibility that new ice and glaciers will form in areas where they never formed before?

We're not advanced enough yet to predict the future here. We assume everything based on short-term information (ice melting, lots of factory pollution), but not on the long-term information (a steady decline in temperature in some areas, recent jump of life in some endangered species), which show some good news.

Then again, I rarely see the media showing good news. It's always bad news that attracts people, it's all about ranking and $$$.

90% of the news is about war, famine, disasters, shootings, deaths, recalls, etc.
Nick2008
deanhills wrote:

A good start will probably be to check up on too-many-people-per-square-mile-of-earth.


The square mile of earth concept just brought me a new idea. Yes, the earth is overpopulating, but it's not "as bad" as it may seem. A lot of the population lives in huge cities which can kill some per square mile rankings. There's a good amount of places that don't have as much people living.

Now of course there's a lot of land that's unsettled, which is generally set aside for forest and wildlife.
But who said we have to cut down the trees in order to settle a town? Forest Cities could be a new Eco-friendly way to more equally distribute the population around the Earth without bombing mother nature. The only obstacle would be finding the most effective and Eco-friendly ways to pave roads, set phone lines, cable lines, electric wires, etc.
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
The only obstacle would be finding the most effective and Eco-friendly ways to pave roads, set phone lines, cable lines, electric wires, etc.

After which, it becomes nothing more than a city with trees. Rolling Eyes The great thing about real wilderness is that none of those things are present.

As I've asked before,
We could become more and more efficient until the entire planet is just one huge, well-oiled machine for keeping humans alive, but should we? Or should we limit our own expansion before there's nothing else left?
Nick2008
ocalhoun wrote:

As I've asked before,
We could become more and more efficient until the entire planet is just one huge, well-oiled machine for keeping humans alive,


True... but what is "efficient"? What is "efficient" to one person may be completely inefficient to another. Taking nuclear energy for example: two sides. One side believes it's efficient because it's cleaner than coal and lowers pollution, but the other side says it is inefficient because it's too expensive to maintain.

When it comes to efficiency some people believe:
-What's cheaper is most efficient
-What's cleaner is most efficient
-What's faster is most efficient
etc...
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

As I've asked before,
We could become more and more efficient until the entire planet is just one huge, well-oiled machine for keeping humans alive,


True... but what is "efficient"? What is "efficient" to one person may be completely inefficient to another.

In this instance, 'efficient' would mean using the Earth's resources for keeping a maximum number of humans alive. Any method that allowed more humans to live on the planet (without depriving others of life) would be more efficient.
silverdown
Hey thanks for the nice links posted in this thread, i am always excited to see photos of the world. I guess it just a hobby.
SonLight
"Global warming", or the wide variety of climate and sea level change due primarily to melted ice, will no doubt be a severe problem in the future, but hardly the end of civilization as we know it. Perhaps several trillion US dollars will be needed to relocate cities and production, and adjust to the new climate of each region. There will be a variety of changes, hotter, colder, wetter, or drier in different areas.

Our first task is to limit the extent of the damage. So far we have done little, and maybe we don't yet know enough to act intelligently. "green" technologies seem worth developing in any case, and they will probably help some, though we are not yet ready to deploy them well. One small example of a glitch is that our current accounting methods for carbon may encourage destruction of forests.

When disastrous results have already happened is when I expect most people and countries to "get on board" and begin some real long-term planning. If done wisely, climate change may cost us about twenty years worth of industrial development, after which we can go on to prosper. If done poorly, we might face a century or more of social instability, with the world going through a series of anarchies and autocracies while many starve. In the latter case, overpopulation will probably not still be a problem.
Soccerman
aningbo wrote:
we are all gonna die soon...

wow.


Now y do u think we are all going to die soon? I mean cmon, the earth has already been around for millions of years. Now people think that humans are creating global warming which is going to destroy earth. Really, humans have only been around for what, 3 million years, and how long have we been producing "green house gases?" If you look at this website you will see that water vapors are creating most of the "polution" that is causing "global warming," but, how come "global warming" is so different from the ice ages? The world changes, did humans create ice ages? No, the world did? Whos to say that the world is creating "global warmin?" http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
SonLight
Soccerman wrote:
If you look at this website you will see that water vapors are creating most of the "polution" that is causing "global warming," but, how come "global warming" is so different from the ice ages? The world changes, did humans create ice ages? No, the world did? Whos to say that the world is creating "global warmin?" http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


The data on that site is obviously flawed. In the first place, they show man's impact on carbon dioxide levels to be small. The fact is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have more than doubled in the two humdred years or so that we have been burning a lot of fuel.

I am guessing that they are counting the percentage of total carbon dioxide flow caused by human activity. While that is doubtless a small percentage, it has been enough to upset a delicate balance. Each of the categories must be looked at in terms of the percentage remaining in the atmosphere, and if our industries have caused a dramatic increase, we need to consider the wisdom of changing our behavior. Even if some natural process were spewing most of the new greenhouse gases, it would be prudent to find a way to offset the increase if our planet were in danger of becoming less livable because of it.
ocalhoun
SonLight wrote:
it would be prudent to find a way to offset the increase if our planet were in danger of becoming less livable because of it.

But what if it actually makes the planet more livable?
nilsmo
ocalhoun wrote:
But what if it actually makes the planet more livable?


Do you think life on this planet is more adapted to pre-global warming conditions or post-global warming conditions? Hmmm.... Hint: I'm adapted to English more than Filipino because I've never heard Filipino.

Along the same lines, although more extreme, do you think life on this planet is more adapted to Earth or to Mars?

OK, enough rhetorical questions. I say the only way global warming is not bad is if it's small enough not to disrupt the balance of our planet, which is currently VERY suitable for life.
ocalhoun
nilsmo wrote:

OK, enough rhetorical questions. I say the only way global warming is not bad is if it's small enough not to disrupt the balance of our planet, which is currently VERY suitable for life.

It is pretty small. And life has adapted just fine to much larger temperature changes in the past... and the evidence suggests that life does better when the planet is in warmer periods.



Quote:
As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator.


Looking at the bright side, global warming might help prevent the next ice age. Wink As bad as a hot Earth might be, an Earth covered in glaciers would be worse!
guth75
I do not believe in global warming, and I have evidence to support it.

The earth has a cycle, The Ice age and the opposite, we happen to be going into the opposite. I beleive it is the earth's cycle and that everything will eventually fit into place. This is the only reason this thread caught my eye. Very Happy
Bikerman
guth75 wrote:
I do not believe in global warming, and I have evidence to support it.

The earth has a cycle, The Ice age and the opposite, we happen to be going into the opposite. I beleive it is the earth's cycle and that everything will eventually fit into place. This is the only reason this thread caught my eye. Very Happy

Err, you may indeed have evidence, but since you haven't produced any then we are forced to take your word for it and, in a science forum, that is not acceptable.

We are currently in an interglacial period (the Holocene) and have been for about 11,000 years. There is no evidence that we are about to enter a new ice age - apart from guesses based on the notion of a 12,000 year cycle, which is not supported by evidence. The latest data, published in Nature, indicates that
Quote:
...the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

We are currently in an interglacial period (the Holocene) and have been for about 11,000 years. There is no evidence that we are about to enter a new ice age - apart from guesses based on the notion of a 12,000 year cycle, which is not supported by evidence. The latest data, published in Nature, indicates that
Quote:
...the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.

Looking at that graph, it's pretty obvious. There is a cycle, but it isn't perfectly regular. It happens every 100,000 years or so, but not exactly. Seems kind of pointless to try and predict something when the margin for error is so large. It could start slipping into an ice age tomorrow, or it could wait 20,000 more years to do so... either one would still fit into the pattern.
Voodoocat
At first glance, Ocalhoun's graph does seem to suggest a strong corellation between CO2 concentration and tempaerature, but there are anomolies.

Between 360,000 and 390,000 years ago the temperature increased, but the CO2 concentration decreased.

Between 330,000 and 350,000 years ago the CO2 concentration increased, but the temperature only increased very slightly.

Between 140,000 and 150,000 years ago the CO2 concentration stayed about the same, but the temperature dropped.

Between 90,000 and 100,000 years ago the CO2 concentration decreased but the temperature stayed about the same.

Finally, the CO2 concentration has increased over the last 10,000 years but the temperature has leveled out.

Overall, there does seem to be a correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, but the anomolies indicate that the story is more compicated than that.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:
At first glance, Ocalhoun's graph does seem to suggest a strong corellation between CO2 concentration and tempaerature, but there are anomolies.

There is certainly a correlation there... but which one causes which? Or are they both caused by some other, third factor?
Voodoocat
I believe that the presence of numerous historic anomolies suggests that the CO2/temperature correlation has been greatly oversimplified (don't tell Al Gore) and the true mechanics of global temperature regulation are still along way from being unveiled.
Bikerman
Voodoocat wrote:
I believe that the presence of numerous historic anomolies suggests that the CO2/temperature correlation has been greatly oversimplified (don't tell Al Gore) and the true mechanics of global temperature regulation are still along way from being unveiled.
Hmm...I see the same argument trotted-out routinely - normally by 'deniers'.
OF COURSE the models are over-simplifications. I'll let you into a scientific secret - ALL MODELS are simplifications. Real life is extremely complex.
The thing is that our scientific models - be they Relativity, QM, or climate models ARE THE BEST WE CAN CURRENTLY DO.
Now, faced with that, we can legitimately say that since we know the theory of relativity is either incorrect or incomplete (this much is certain), then we disbelieve physicists when they tell us that Global Positioning Satellites should be corrected for Relativistic effects. The trouble is that, if we do, our GPS system is going to think we are in Newark when in fact we are in Newcastle.

You work with the best you have - in ALL science. The best models that we have for physics are Relativity and QM. The best climate models we have say that we are in trouble. The level of certainty in QM and Relativity is, for sure, much greater than our climate models, but does that mean we should ignore them? I think not.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
but does that mean we should ignore them? I think not.

So, we should believe (as indisputably proven fact), and take risks based on, any theory as long as it is the best we have at the time?

Is the Earth warming? Pretty sure it is.
But I'm very unsure of the ideas that it is caused by humans, can be stopped by humans, or should be stopped at all.
And I'm absolutely sure it isn't the apocalyptic scenario some people have been predicting it will be.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
but does that mean we should ignore them? I think not.

So, we should believe (as indisputably proven fact), and take risks based on, any theory as long as it is the best we have at the time?
That would be completely unscientific. NO theory is 'indisputably proven fact'. Of course we should base our risk assessments on current theory - what else should we base them on? Speculation?
Quote:
Is the Earth warming? Pretty sure it is.
But I'm very unsure of the ideas that it is caused by humans, can be stopped by humans, or should be stopped at all.
The evidence for anthropomorphic GW is pretty overwhelming.
Quote:
And I'm absolutely sure it isn't the apocalyptic scenario some people have been predicting it will be.
That depends on who you listen to. A 2 degree rise this century would be pretty bad, but manageable. A 6 degree rise would be pretty catastrophic.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Hmm...I see the same argument trotted-out routinely - normally by 'deniers'.


The 'deniers' are now accompanied by world renown climatolgists and meterological institutions. For example, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research has found that the global temperature only increased by 0.07 degrees Celsius between 1999 and 2008, not the predicted 0.2 degrees, and when corrected for El Nino and La Nina effects the temperature increase becomes...........


ZERO!!!!!!!!


Yep, that's right. NO CHANGE AT ALL! Now there is an inconvenient truth that Al Gore (among others) will ignore.

There are others joining the bandwagon.
Quote:
Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."


According to one of Germany's leading meteorologists, Mojib Latif, the global temperature has reached a plateau. As he says: "We have to face that fact." He wonders if the global temperature changes are not just normal variations of the global climate:

Quote:
"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,"



Lets revisit the original statement:
Quote:
Hmm...I see the same argument trotted-out routinely - normally by 'deniers'.


Would you like to change your mind?

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Bikerman
Your 'arguments' are quite ridiculous, but let's deal with them...
a) The Hadley centre, and other reputable climate-science organisations, have no doubt that there is global warming and that much of it is anthropomorphic.
Deniers like to select small samples to 'prove' their point. It is, of course, entirely dishonest.
Why choose 1999-present? Simple - 1998 was a record El-nino. Why not choose 1900-present? Simple, that shows an indisputable effect.
b) The fact that there is uncertainty in climate models is understood by everyone - including the modelers. To pretend that this equates to the whole underlying physics being in doubt is silly and dishonest.
c) Nobody I know in the science community has suggested a linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. Climate modellers, unlike many deniers, are well aware that the climate represents a chaotic, multivariable system including many feed-back systems.
Voodoocat wrote:
Would you like to change your mind?
No. My 'like' or 'dislike' has little to do with it. It would be far more convenient, personally, to 'accept' that there is no problem. In fact there is no 'selfish' reason for me to give much of a damn. I'm approaching 50 years old and I don't expect (or particularly want) to live more than another 20 or so years. The worst effects of AGW will not be something I witness.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Your 'arguments' are quite ridiculous


These are not my arguments, but those of extremely knowledgeable experts in the fields of climatology and meterology.

Lets follow the refutations.

Quote:
Deniers like to select small samples to 'prove' their point.


What do you call modelling an entire globe by using 517 monitoring stations? Thorough? Exhaustive? High definition? Or just plain skimpy?

Quote:
1998 was a record El-nino


I honestly do not know how long the El Nino effect lasts, but I doubt it lasts a decade. Unfortunately, the temperature has still reached a plateau and is not increasing at this point.

Quote:
The fact that there is uncertainty in climate models is understood by everyone - including the modelers


Exactly my point! To drastically alter the economies of almost all countries on uncertain models that currently do not match reality is foolish.

Quote:
Nobody I know in the science community has suggested a linear correlation between CO2 and temperature


Yes again!!!!!!! This point should be obvious since the CO2 concentration has been increasing while the temperature is not.

My overall point is, and always has been, that the media and politicians have painted a portrait of global warming that is childishly simple. The truth is far more intricate.

Of course, after all my babbling, next year's temperatures will hit record highs Sad

Quote:
I'm approaching 50 years old and I don't expect (or particularly want) to live more than another 20 or so years.


Ah come on man! Every cloud has a silver lining, and even if global warming is true you can always look forward to the next World of Warcraft expansion! Very Happy
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:

Quote:
Deniers like to select small samples to 'prove' their point.


What do you call modelling an entire globe by using 517 monitoring stations? Thorough? Exhaustive? High definition? Or just plain skimpy?

Extremely skimpy!

These changes are slow! To get a real sense of the trend, you need a sample of thousands of years.

The debate is plagued by people on both sides who just can't understand the time scale.
Bikerman
No, that is not correct. You cannot use a sample of thousands of years to spot the current anomoly since we haven't been pumping out record CO2 for that time. You CAN look at the correlation between CO2 and temp historically and you certainly DO find a correlation.
The point about the 97/98 el-nino is that it was a 50 year record high. One would not, therefore, expect recent temperatures to exceed it. Having said that, 2002 was slightly higher by some measurements and slightly less by others.
The uncertainty in climate models is entirely normal for any model of a multistable chaotic system. The important point is not specific predictions by specific models, but the trend indicated by running many models thousands of times. The range of uncertainty is roughly between 2 and 6 degrees increase in temp over this century. 2 would be bad. 6 would be catastrophic. We can, therefore, say that since the data cannot lead to an accurate prediction we would be better doing nothing. Personally I think that is a rather stupid argument.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
No, that is not correct. You cannot use a sample of thousands of years to spot the current anomoly since we haven't been pumping out record CO2 for that time.

True, but looking back at the ice core data, the 'random noise' of small changes has spikes and dips that last thousands of years... How can we be so sure that our current trend of only 50 years isn't mainly just one of those random jitters on the graph?

From what I can tell, it would take a sample of at least 10,000 years to convincingly point towards a significant long-term change, not just another little spike.
Bikerman
We don't have that luxury.
There is clear evidence that CO2 is a major climate driver. It certainly isn't the only one, but it is the only one which we can control to some extent.
If you look at the ice core data from Vostock, you see:

Now, bear in mind that we are currently at nearly 400ppm for current atmospheric CO2 and we are in new territory.
Now, a common observation is that there is a lag between CO2 and temperature in the wrong direction (ie it appears that temperature starts to rise and THEN CO2 rises). I think the data bears this out, but that doesn't mean that the basic science is wrong. Current theory is that temperature does indeed affect levels of CO2 in a feedback mechanism. It is not difficult to hypothesis why this might be. CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Current theory is that temperature does indeed affect levels of CO2 in a feedback mechanism. It is not difficult to hypothesis why this might be. CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans.

But, it can't do that indefinitely, or there'd be no rise and fall pattern, only a pattern of continuous (exponential) rise... What causes CO2 and temperature to fall again after a warm spike?

[nonsense speculation]
Pattern may offer a clue... It seems that there is a 'double-spike' pattern after every major temperature drop, and when that double-spike is big enough, it causes more, smaller, double-spikes in a ripple-like effect.

The first one is at -380kyr. The -320kyr spike doesn't seem to produce one, but after the smaller fall of -270kyr, there is a very clear one. There's a huge double-spike at -200kyr. And the rippling effect of them is very clear at -90kyr, -50kyr, and -40kyr.

What might cause a ripple like that?
[/nonsense speculation]

Hm... answering that might give us a better solution. Triggering this natural mechanism for temperature reduction might be easier than trying to drastically change a lot of our technology.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
So, go ahead and use the Internet. Just make sure you're getting information from a reliable source. This is a science topic, so go to a science organization.
I was thinking about this thread when I read the article below. I'm sure it has to be an extreme case, or maybe quoted out of context, though it puts a different meaning to what a "reliable scientific source" could mean. Maybe Indi or Chris has seen the e-mails already and can let us know exactly how accurate they are?

It would appear that the Wall Street Journal has "hacked" some revealing e-mails in which scientists had apparently been colluding in order to present a unified release of "scientific" information on Global Warming. The e-mails that "were hacked" by the Wall Street Journal (a question mark probably needs to be put against how they managed to do that) were an exchange between the Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists in the UK, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center in the US. The Wall Street Journal on-line article appeared under the title of: Global Warming With the Lid Off :The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.

Quote:
In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.


There is a link in the article to a collection of e-mails that have been published by the On-Line Wallstreet Journal under the heading of: "Climate Science and Candor". The following are some quotes from the Wall Street Journal article:
Quote:
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

Quote:
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Voodoocat
Deanhills nailed this subject! The emails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit clearly show that not only was data fabricated but peer review was biased towards results supporting global warming.

A few examples:

Step one: falsify data.
Quote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


Step two: if the data still doesn't fit your model, the data, not the model, must be wrong.
Quote:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.


Finally, when all else fails, remove peer reviewers that don't agree with you. After all, if they don't agree with you, they must be wrong, not you.
Quote:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”


source:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
jabce85
It frustrates me to no end about people freaking out about global warming..... hey, guess what?! It's happened before!! We still don't know if it's us that has single handedly brought about this change or if it has just been the earth going through another warming period. Yes, true, we have hurt the atmosphere, but it is quite hard to say that we've done it all ourselves.
deanhills
Looks as though Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit of the British University of East Anglia is stepping down until investigations have been concluded:
Quote:
Dubbing the affair "Climategate," some climate change skeptics have seized upon the e-mails, some of them written 13 years ago, and accused scientists at CRU of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.

Skeptics have pointed to phrases in the e-mails in which climate scientists talk of using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures as evidence that they adjusted data to fit their theories. CRU denies any manipulation.

Delegates meet in Copenhagen for a December 7-18 talks to try to work out a new U.N. pact to address global warming.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_head_of_british_climate_institute_steps_down_over_hacked_global_warming_email_fl.html
Bikerman
Voodoocat wrote:
Deanhills nailed this subject! The emails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit clearly show that not only was data fabricated but peer review was biased towards results supporting global warming.
No - it shown neither of those things.
Quote:
Step one: falsify data.
Quote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
A 'trick' is a technique (normally statistical) applied to data. It doesn't mean what you think - a fiddle.
Quote:
Step two: if the data still doesn't fit your model, the data, not the model, must be wrong.
Quote:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Questioning data is a part of the process. Much climate data is difficult to interpret and what you do is take the widest range of data you can and look for correlations. Of course the models don't explain every detail correctly - that would require models far more complex than we have.
This is nothing more than a heartfelt plea for more work to be done - hardly something to criticise.
Quote:
Finally, when all else fails, remove peer reviewers that don't agree with you. After all, if they don't agree with you, they must be wrong, not you.
Quote:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
The full story is a bit more revealing. The journal in question - Climate Research - has long been questioned by climate scientists for publishing dodgy papers. Half of the editorial board resigned and a review of the offending article produced an admission from the jounral that the paper's conclusions could not be drawn from the paper itself - in other words Mann's criticisms were shared by many and they were DEAD RIGHT!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Has global warming.....cooled?
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.