Global Warming - interesting stuff

[bushpig 0]

They are now finding toxin build up in deep ocean animals, once thought to spend most of their time in deep oceans away from human activity, and supposedly buffered by the natural buffer/filter that is the ocean. It is a direct result of runoff from rivers and the chemicals from urban centers AND farming chemicals, etc. What is the relevance to the GW debate? Well first it shows how little we understand the world despite thinking we do (a plus for the naysayers of GW), and second, it also shows just how pervasive the effects of our activities on this planet can be in areas we think are quite protected (a definite plus for the promoters of GW). While a lot is not understood anywhere near perfectly, you would have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to think all this output into the atmosphere of CO2, clearing of forests, etc. will have no noticeable effect on the balance of the planet. If false information is indeed being presented, then that certainly needs to be adressed, but arguing over the semantics of consensus is not winning me over. It does not mean "unanimous" it means GENERAL agreement. So, those who disagree with GW don't get heard, but there are many of them? BS, the naysayers have fought hard to keep the idea alive and well that there is no consensus. They have influenced governments (notably the US - Bush administration) to the point of denying anything is happening. Is this not being heard? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The above link is interesting, and I would certainly like to see some of his issues taken up. But it is gonna take more than that to pull me back from the general consenus that GW is real.

[coldcat 0]

skidaisuki, you are not pedantic but maybe you should read my post again. I said serious scientists not anyone. And consensus is not what you say, for some people is what you say for other people is something else, there's no consensus on what consensus is :-D. At least that's what I understand. Anyway, I'm sorry if we are turning this post into a philosophical discussion which was not my intention. With the article I submitted, I just wanted to offer you guys some other points of view on global warming from the scientific community.

[coldcat 0]

Bushpig, the naysayers (as you call them) are many, and the proofs behind them are also many. And since then truth has been equal to majority? In the past,most people believed the earth was flat. For me it's irrelevant how many people believe in something, just show me the proof for your argument and if it makes sense I'll believe it. And as the article I submitted describes the proofs that they showed us are deliberately not accurate and lack scientist rigor.

[bushpig 0]

yep, agreed on all your points. Which is why I said I'd like to see those points addressed. I choose to take the "general consensus" as the likely truth because I don't have the scientific knowledge or training to make my own judgement on the matter. In the end, the best we can do is to go with the best judgement of the people who actually analyze the details of what we are looking at. I'm not saying it is a slam dunk, but that for the time being it seems there is more agreement from a wider group than there is of the people who disagree (not saying they don't exist).

 

As for the article you linked above providing a dissenting view of a large number of people, well Monckton is a journalist, not a scientist. Now I'm not saying that his arguments are not based in fact, but does he have sufficient scientific training to be able to look at all the facts in a way that would convince me to believe his argument? No. I find his allegations interesting and want to know more, but he is a journalist. A quick search also brought this up from wikipedia:

 

 Quote:

HIV and AIDS

In January 1987, Monckton wrote in an article in The American Spectator[1]:

 

There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life [...] Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month [...] all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.

 

Monckton subsequently disassociated himself with these comments, citing modern medical breakthroughs as reason alone to disregard these comments.[citation needed]

 

Wouldn't be the first time he got it wrong on the "science" of something...

[bushpig 0]

Have a look here , for some discussing disproving Monckton's dodgy facts...

[coldcat 0]

I don't see the point in his HIV argument, however, he has a point in global warming and he supports it with evidence. ... and he is not alone here is another article:

http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html

[coldcat 0]

For those of you who are lazy and don't want to read the whole article here is some very important point:

"Satellite data also undermines the theory of global warming. Most of the data suggesting that there is global warming was collected over the last 140 years from recorded temperatures. Now satellites are used to record temperatures. Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, they show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling."

[bushpig 0]

will look at that one linked there. Whether you see his point on the HIV issue or not is irrelevant. He got it wrong when being categorical about it WITHOUT having any scientific research or training to back it up. Is it impossible to think he could be doing the same here?

[bushpig 0]

btw, we are not saying he is not alone in his views. Everyone knows that there are those that disagree with the GW caused by humans theory. But just producing an article doesn't convince me that this is anything but a minority view. I need more proof than that cc... Both sides will produce studies and research to back up what they want to say, this is nothing new. So why have you decided to believe this particular version of the "facts" rather than the other version. What gives this this group more credibility cc? Is it because they whinge more loudly about not being given a fair hearing, or is it that everyone likes the idea of a conspiracy theory?

[bushpig 0]

hey cc, you might want to check your sources too before putting them up. That site by Karen Boyachek is clearly an assignment for a university undergrad course. There are two solutions posted in association with it, and there is also a review of the authenticity of the referenced "facts" here. Surely this isn't in the realm of world class scientists putting forward credible theories?

[coldcat 0]

Bushpig, I don't know why you are turning this into a debate. I don't want to convince you. And I did check my sources, I can also read like you. I just thought for those who don't have a scientific background it may be easier to understand since it is a summary of some of the current theories.The scientific sources that the paper quote are at the bottom of the page and embedded in the figures.

 

If you still want to discredit anyone who doesn't share your opinion, you are still going to do it, and this is not going to stop you but anyway here you have the wikipedia article on the controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm..._warming_theory

Still you can say that wikipedia is not trustworthy,and I'm sure that you can also say that the references it cites are also not trustworthy.

[coldcat 0]

I find it interesting that most of the "pro-GW" arguments I am seeing in this post are just discrediting of the voices against. It is much more convincing if you can link to an article explaining why the antarctic is cooling down or why the satellites which is the more accurate way of measuring temperature than the ground station show a cooling trend.

[Rag-Doll 0]

CC,

 

This is an interesting thread and remarkably civil(!) I don't think BP is doing anything other than offering a counterpoint to your views. GW is an interesting topic of discussion and I realy wish I could understand half of the material that is available on it.

 

That NOAA site is very interesting, especially how they say that any data beyond 600 years has to be treated with some caution given the limited sources of information. It's stuff like that that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the popular media stories about GW.

[moloneb3 0]

Coldcat who controls the satellites? Also, why was it that the American government amended so many documents on Global which they commissioned. They replaced 'is' with 'might be' which creats doubt!!

 

Anyways they have their reasons for doing this but who knows? At the end of the day driving SUV's is wrong. They do not belong in a city. Their consumption is ridiculous. This is my personal view. But it is peoples free choice to ruin the air that pedestrians breathe.

 

In fairness GW is something that has been around since the late 80's and early 90's when oil was $5 a barrel so the incentive wasn't there then to create false reports supporting GW.

 

Also where is the information about the south pole getting colder, I would like to see it. I watched Al Gore's movie and it scared the hell out of me to be honest. I have started plugging out things and using as little energy as possible. It may be hulabaloo but if it is not at least I feel like I am doing my bit.

[Rag-Doll 0]

 

As I say, the issues and complexity of GW is not something that the popular media handles well or is even something most people are equipped to understand even if they were presented with the information.

[coldcat 0]

Molooney, I'm really glad to hear that you started to use as little energy as possible. There are many reasons to do it, many well understood, agreed upon reasons to do it. We humans ARE polluting the environment, but I am not so sure we are changing the climate of the earth significantly. As I said the C02 emitted by humans is only a very small fraction (0.something) of the total C02 in the atmosphere.

 

By the way, the weather satellites don't belong to the US. The US has some, other countries have others. Japan has m-sat for example.

 

And here is your information on the south pole getting colder. Enjoy it brother:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-cooling.htm

[coldcat 0]

Sorry, I made a mistake. It isn't called msat, but mtsat.

[bushpig 0]

hey cc, I'm not simply trying to discredit people with another view. As I said, I think the matter isn't absolute either way, and with my limited knowledge of the complexities, I can only go on what I read, hear or am told. As for turning this into a debate, well isn't that the way to get people to see different points of view? It can only help us get a broader understanding right? I'm not meaning to personally attack you (if I have then sorry).

 

The point I was trying to get across was that the articles provided so far haven't done much to convince me that the widely accepted (by the public, media and visible scientific community) is incorrect. Neither of the two referenced here are sources of high enough repute (in the relevant field) to counter the numerous studies by many science institutions worldwide which support the GW theory.

 

 Quote:

I find it interesting that most of the "pro-GW" arguments I am seeing in this post are just discrediting of the voices against.

That will happen until credible sources are given that prove the opposite. The burden of proof lies on the side trying to go against a commonly held theory, otherwise no one will listen. It is not the other way round.

 

 Quote:

It is much more convincing if you can link to an article explaining why the antarctic is cooling down or why the satellites which is the more accurate way of measuring temperature than the ground station show a cooling trend.

Well actually, that article does state that the cooling is only occurring in some areas of the antarctic, while other areas are indeed warming. It also explains that although not understood by science yet, it is the result of the easing of winds in certain areas. This is linked with changes in ocean currents and systems, which in turn could quite plausibly be due to the GW effect(this last one is my assumption).

[moloneb3 0]

I think at the end of the day it will take blatant catastrophe to convince all people. While there are people there will be people who doubt? This opens the debate and makes it healthy. Believing as we did in the catholic church in Ireland for so long, it lead to systematic abuse of childeren. With the internet people can have open debate on potentially one of the biggest problems to face mankind.

 

Lastly, my personal opinion is that we are contributing to global warming. That is just what I have chosen to believe based on what I know. But based on what people knew in 1933, there were people in America and the UK championing Hitler and his methods. We saw where that led. I am kinda writing and saying nothing. But basically the facts that I have read and understand seem compelling for me to believe. However, like any person who believes in science you have to be open to being wrong.

 

I could be wrong!!

[coldcat 0]

Bushpig, I didn't feel like you are attacking me personally. As somebody else said in this post the discussion is being very civic and I appreciate it. But it is true that I didn't want this to evolve into a debate. Even though debates are healthy, I think there's already enough debate about Global Warming. But anyway, it has evolved into it, and maybe it is a good thing after all.

 

My feeling is that anybody who opposes Global Warming is quickly discredited. I don't think that because the author of the original article is wrong about HIV, it means that he is also wrong about everything else he says. I think we should take knowledge wherever we find it and whoever it comes from (as long as it is supported by scientific evidence). Nobody in this world is right about everything. The article poses some interesting questions and supports them with quite a lot of evidence. That evidence has been produced by real scientists and he, as a journalist, is just exposing what others have said. That's journalism. I am not surprised to see that many people criticise him. When there is lack of arguments against an idea, people usually tend to attack the person instead of the idea. And in my opinion, that's what's happening to a fairly great extent with GW. If you study the lives of the scientists who oppose or have opposed GW you will find that they have almost in all cases being discredited by the main stream media. Instead of answering the questions those scientists pose, the main stream media just discredit them by saying they are funded by oil companies, and things of the like. I wouldn't be surprised if many more scientists and experts who also oppose the current global warming hysteria do not speak for fear of having the same fate.

[Ocean11 0]

> Instead of answering the questions those scientists pose, the main stream media just discredit them by saying they are funded by oil companies, and things of the like.

 

That isn't actually true. What happens is that scientists knock big holes in what these dissenters have proposed, again and again, and then pointed out the reasons why they might be ignoring the science - i.e., they're paid to do so.

 

There's an article currently in The Independent that has this to say about it:

"The warming effect of the gas was first pointed out in 1827 by the French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier. And on Christmas Eve 1896w Svante Arrhenius, a depressed 35-year-old Swedish chemist trying to take his mind off the collapse of his marriage to his beautiful research assistant, sat down and started a year-long mathematical calculation. This concluded that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise global temperatures by some 5C to 6C.

 

And ever since, the basic physics has never been seriously challenged. So why the much-touted scientific debate over global warming? The truth is that there really isn't one. A recent survey of 928 scientific papers found not one that disputed the reality of climate change. Last year, the scientific academies of the G8 countries, plus India, China and Brazil, issued a joint statement confirming it.

 

Yet a handful of much-publicised contrarians create the illusion of a debate. Few are climatologists. Even fewer publish any research. Some openly admit to being funded by the oil industry."

 

Where there seems to be reasonable grounds for controversy is in predicting the future - for the simple reason that we just don't know what it holds because the models may involve factors that aren't known yet or some events that are not foreseeable.

[coldcat 0]

1. Nobody disputes that C02 warms the atmosphere, if it wasn't for the warming effect of C02 and other green houses present in the atmosphere, life would not be possible on earth, it would be too cold. But how can humans double the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere when our emissions account for such a small percentage of the total C02 in the atmosphere?

 

2. That's because they only considered those voices that supported their own view. There are and there were voices within the scientific community who contradict their view; they just ignored them. That way they can say there's consensus. If there was consensus there wouldn't be controversy.

[coldcat 0]

Ocean11, I wonder what big holes are you speaking about? The antarctic cooling down? The satellites stating the earth is cooling down?

 

You know, 30 years ago it was the opposite. Cooling of the earth was the big thing, and although it didn't achieve the momentum that GW is achieving it did achieve considerable credibility in the media. Now, however nobody remembers about it. And those who remember it state that it wasn't serious. Mmm... I wonder what they will say about GW if it turns out to be as true as it was the Global Cooling they were talking about 30 years ago.

[Ocean11 0]

The cooling thing was almost entirely a media-driven thing, not a science-driven thing, that's why 'nobody remembers it' (although they do, especially in discussions like this one). And 30 years ago, there wasn't the computing power available to model climate.

 

> The antarctic cooling down? The satellites stating the earth is cooling down?

 

Read your Antartic article again, carefully this time. And Google "satellites earth cooling" and come back again with your controversy bag a little lighter.

[coldcat 0]

Ocean11, first I'll ask you to be a little more humble when you post or otherwise the debate becomes uncomfortable, and is not fun anymore. Second I won't answer your post, let Professor William M. Gray, famous for predicting the number of hurricanes that are going to happen every season in the Atlantic, answer you:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.co...arming+skeptics

 

I wonder how much expertise you hold to speak with such confidence.

 

As Mooloney pointed out earlier is important to know that we could be wrong.