 New study on human's effect on global warming |
Posty 
Don Posty: Sultan of Seattle
Registration Date: 11-17-2005
Clan: (MA)
Location: Seattle. Wa
 |
|
| New study on human's effect on global warming |
     |
Brand new study on how humans ARE helping the world to warm up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/
The folks who say that human activity is not leading global warming are looking a lot like the holocaust deniers and members of the flat earth society. Even many evangelical Christian organizations are waking up and putting pressure on prez Bush.
We know this is happening and that we are helping it to happen and we all want to help it to stop and it's time for our political leaders, Dems and Repubs alike, to step up to the plate and start taking action and quit bowing down to energy companies.
|
|
01-23-2007 01:31 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
| quote: |
| This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes “a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate,” co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. |
"edited by bureacrats"! What's up with that?!
And then we get this suspicious secrecy:
| quote: |
| Solomon and others wouldn’t go into specifics about what the report says. They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later. |
Again, what's the deal with the secret editing? Science is not served by secrecy.
__________________
To contact Scratch, go to http://sewingwitch.com/blogs/ScratchMonkey/.
Write this down!
|
|
|
01-23-2007 02:53 |
|
|
Smegmoid
Forum God
Registration Date: 05-18-2006
Location: Omaha, NE
|
|
I'm a bit too tipsy to read the link Posty provided, but I would stand now on what I'm standing on in the other thread about the environment and man's place in it, an intelligent person's ability to apply reason, logic and honesty.
I could fill pages with links to scientific data supporting global warming, but I won't. Why? Because it shouldn't be about one expert trying to discredit another. It should be about rational, intelligent, informed human beings applying common sense and reaching a sensible conclusion.
There doesn't need to be a new study....the old studies are fine. It's happening and if we don't deal with it now, we leave it to our children and grand children to deal with.
__________________
|
|
|
01-23-2007 03:38 |
|
|
Eeyore
blessed with friends
Registration Date: 11-04-2002
Clan: wow-ma
Location: Manchester, NH
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Smegmoid
I'm a bit too tipsy to read the link Posty provided, but I would stand now on what I'm standing on in the other thread about the environment and man's place in it, an intelligent person's ability to apply reason, logic and honesty.
I could fill pages with links to scientific data supporting global warming, but I won't. Why? Because it shouldn't be about one expert trying to discredit another. It should be about rational, intelligent, informed human beings applying common sense and reaching a sensible conclusion.
There doesn't need to be a new study....the old studies are fine. It's happening and if we don't deal with it now, we leave it to our children and grand children to deal with. |
Last time I checked, "common sense" is not part of the scientific method. Your attempt to set the bounds of the discussion by something as nebulous as "common sense" or "sensible" have nothing to do with scientific method. The old studies are not fine. They contain gaping errors, errneous extrapolations, and are frankly junk. The junk science of global warming has been hammered by mathemeticians, and the junk scientists who have written some of the most influential "studies" all have large grants (i.e., their paychecks) depenent upon their research.
so, lets not be silly and talk about common sense, though that is a nice liberal way to dodge fact and bring the wjole issue into the realm of "feeling" and mass-hysteria where liberals are most comfortable.
No surprise to me that one of Pelosi's first act was to announce a global warming commission...as a result, liberals everywhere will be having fits of orgasmic hysteria, and the "scientists" willl be reviewing their options for which Carribbean island to retire on.
__________________
"We find greatest joy, not in getting, but in expressing what we are...Men do not really live for honors or for pay; their gladness is not the taking and holding, but in doing, the striving, the building, the living. It is a higher joy to teach than to be taught. It is good to get justice, but better to do it; fun to have things but more to make them. The happy man is he who lives the life of love, not for the honors it may bring, but for the life itself." - R.J. Baughan
|
|
|
01-23-2007 07:11 |
|
|
General Zod
Ruler of Planet Houston
Registration Date: 12-14-2003
Clan: MA
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
|
| quote: |
| No surprise to me that one of Pelosi's first act was to announce a global warming commission...as a result, liberals everywhere will be having fits of orgasmic hysteria, and the "scientists" willl be reviewing their options for which Carribbean island to retire on. |
This Conservative administration has acknowledged that global warming is occuring and that humans have contributed to it. Instead of blaming liberals, you might want to just blame most scientists, because on both political spectrums there is agreement that we're heating the earth up.
|
|
|
01-23-2007 07:40 |
|
|
Eeyore
blessed with friends
Registration Date: 11-04-2002
Clan: wow-ma
Location: Manchester, NH
|
|
conservative administration? since when? Bush is a liberal, and the "republicans" of late have been more liberal than ever.
However, I agree heartily with your post in that "global warming" is now the fodder of politics rather than science, precisely becuase it touches an emotional cord with people.
"The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus" - Michael Crighton
These are some of the key points of Defreitas, a New Zealand climatologist who has earned the ire of liberals:
Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain’t so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth’s plants.
Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, “anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon.” He also notes that the increase in the air’s CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth’s oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet’s recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.
Fallacy 4: Global temperature has increased over the past two decades. Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies cited by de Freitas, has increased so dramatically that much - if not all - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the urban heat island phenomenon.
Fallacy 5: Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming. No way, says de Freitas; climate models predict significant warming of the lower atmosphere, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record. Hence, the only data set that provides a truly global perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides “direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis.”
Fallacy 6: Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past. This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by de Freitas, who cites the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.
Fallacy 7: There are reliable forecasts of future climate. No credence can be given to this claim, says de Freitas, until the models making the forecasts have been verified, which likely will not happen anytime soon. In fact, he notes that “earth’s atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years.” The reason? “Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters.”
Fallacy 8: Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway. First of all, as de Freitas has noted, there may not be any warming currently occurring. Second, as he has demonstrated, much of what may be occurring may be natural. Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.
Fallacy 9: Global warming will produce a rise in sea level. Again, not so, according to de Freitas. For one thing, he notes there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century. Plus, he cites the work of many scientists who suggest that warming could result in greater snowfall over the polar ice caps, transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets and possibly halting sea level rise.
Fallacy 10: Global warming will result in more extreme weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.
Fallacy 11: IPCC’s predictions are reasonable. In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently unreasonable. Over half of their predictions, according to de Freitas, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing twice as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.
Fallacy 12: Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models. It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, as noted by de Freitas, (1) “observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models,” (2) so fantastically less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.
Fallacy 13: There is a consensus that greenhouse induced climate change is a major threat. Quoting de Freitas, “scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers.” To believe such a group would reach a consensus on so complex an issue is ludicrous in the extreme. Indeed, de Freitas’ own paper, with its many references, is ample proof that true science is alive and well … and dissenting.
Fallacy 14: The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto’s effect on temperature “would be imperceptible,” according to de Freitas. “So,” he continues, “in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary.”
In one of his articles Defreitas cautions against politicizing the science of global warming, noting that the subject is highly polarized. The nice thing about scientific method is there is a "method" you can scrutinize. Trying to pass off global warming as somewhow established and resolved is simply untenable. It is a theory, nothing more. Republicans generally ignore it, Democrats run screaming to the altar of AlGore to sacrifice their firstborn to the weather god. Either response is irrelevent to science.
I am hazarding a guess that smeg has read some of defreitas' writings, since he expresses a similar tone of maintaining a certain level-headedness about the issue. I would just caution again about the "consensus" piece. There is no consensus.
__________________
"We find greatest joy, not in getting, but in expressing what we are...Men do not really live for honors or for pay; their gladness is not the taking and holding, but in doing, the striving, the building, the living. It is a higher joy to teach than to be taught. It is good to get justice, but better to do it; fun to have things but more to make them. The happy man is he who lives the life of love, not for the honors it may bring, but for the life itself." - R.J. Baughan
|
|
|
01-23-2007 07:55 |
|
|
General Zod
Ruler of Planet Houston
Registration Date: 12-14-2003
Clan: MA
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
|
Interestingly enough, that article you reposted was authored for the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology.
Looks along the same lines as Bob Carter source you cited previously which was paid for by Exxon.
|
|
|
01-23-2007 09:40 |
|
|
Mandelbrot
Founder Leader
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (MA)
Location: Monroe, MI
|
|
Bush is a conservative. The fact that he's a dumbass doesn't make him a liberal, it makes him a conservative dumbass. Trying to make black white and white black is pretty worn out by now, and seems to be a conservative pass time.
The national science academies of the United States, Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy, Brazil, China and Russia seem to disagree with Mr. (not Doctor?) Defreitas. Ah, but they are all influenced by politics, unlike....er..... Mr. Defreitas.
__________________
|
|
|
01-23-2007 09:51 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
I wish I could ban the words "liberal" and "conservative" from this section, because their use here serves only to confuse issues. Find some other word, or use descriptions, not labels, because the labels have no common definition we all agree on and are useless as tools of communication. You might as well use Eloi and Morlocks, for all the usefulness the words offer.
As to sources of studies and papers, why should I trust an article funded by the government, with its perverse incentive systems, more than one funded by a corporation? Governments seek to expand their budgets and payrolls and so will create incentives to come up with findings that encourage more interventionist policy, requiring more studies and new and ever-growing bureaucracies. "Scientists" will pander to governments, just as they pander to corporations, to get guaranteed job security.
The aforementioned secrecy suggests that there's a lot of tax money getting ready for burning and the bureaucrats responsible for these studies want to make sure they're the first pigs at the trough.
__________________
To contact Scratch, go to http://sewingwitch.com/blogs/ScratchMonkey/.
Write this down!
|
|
|
01-23-2007 16:40 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
Does anyone have a link to Defreitas article as originally published? Zod, where did you learn that it was commissioned by BCPG? (Not questioning that, I just want to know how you find these things.)
__________________
To contact Scratch, go to http://sewingwitch.com/blogs/ScratchMonkey/.
Write this down!
|
|
|
01-23-2007 16:42 |
|
|
Aluzion
Tuque Collector
Registration Date: 03-03-2002
Clan: (MA)
Location: Montreal, Quebec
|
|
The argument and debate of global warming is long over. The only thing left for the skeptics is to try and create doubt.
I could post pages of links to support this claim, but here's one just in.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/science/4490228.html
| quote: |
The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said. |
Interesting link at the bottom of that article: http://www.ipcc.ch/
__________________
[citation needed]
|
|
|
01-23-2007 16:59 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
I don't think the issue is whether there's global warming, but whether human action is a significant factor, and whether human intervention is desirable.
__________________
To contact Scratch, go to http://sewingwitch.com/blogs/ScratchMonkey/.
Write this down!
|
|
|
01-23-2007 17:36 |
|
|
General Zod
Ruler of Planet Houston
Registration Date: 12-14-2003
Clan: MA
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
|
|
|
01-23-2007 19:06 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
|
|
01-23-2007 19:15 |
|
|
General Zod
Ruler of Planet Houston
Registration Date: 12-14-2003
Clan: MA
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
|
If you look around scratch, you'll find that the journal that he works for had half of the editors quit because they thought the science behind the articles he had published was sketchy.
|
|
|
01-23-2007 19:30 |
|
|
Mandelbrot
Founder Leader
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (MA)
Location: Monroe, MI
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Mandelbrot
Ah, but they are all influenced by politics, unlike....er..... Mr. Defreitas.
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by ScratchMonkey
As to sources of studies and papers, why should I trust an article funded by the government, with its perverse incentive systems, more than one funded by a corporation? Governments seek to expand their budgets and payrolls and so will create incentives to come up with findings that encourage more interventionist policy, requiring more studies and new and ever-growing bureaucracies. "Scientists" will pander to governments, just as they pander to corporations, to get guaranteed job security.
|
My last sentence was sarcastic, and I may have confused readers...sorry.
The US Academy of Sciences isn't funded by the government. Members serve pro bono. Members with conflicts of interest are allowed to give input, but are barred from voting on topics where they have a conflict. They have no control over what bureaucracies may or may not be created.
This administration has been actively trying to eliminate all environmental programs, not expand them.
The IPCC reports RP and Aluzion mentions are especially alarming.
The fourth one since 1990 is about to be released Feb. 2, and it's been leaked to the British press. Here's a story about it. Edit - another.
__________________
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Mandelbrot: 01-24-2007 06:50.
|
|
|
01-23-2007 20:09 |
|
|
Eeyore
blessed with friends
Registration Date: 11-04-2002
Clan: wow-ma
Location: Manchester, NH
|
|
| rebuttal of the NCAR report |
|
FYI, NCAR members were co-authors of the latest "The sky is falling" scam we are seeing in the news.
| quote: |
NCAR Report Based on Flawed Science
Written By: S. Fred Singer
Published In: Environment News
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
A news release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) claims a “New Look at Satellite Data Supports Global Warming Trend.” But the NCAR result is based on the wishful thinking of well-known global warming promoters, rather than on solid science.
The NCAR findings were published by the journal Science on May 1 at http://www.sciencexpress.org. The lead author is Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer became notorious for surreptitiously altering the text of a crucial chapter in the 1995 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report on Climate Change in order to make it conform to the politically inspired IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Competing Trends
The NCAR study is based on an analysis of weather satellite data by Frank Wentz and his colleagues at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They proclaim a warming trend of about 0.1º C per decade between 1979 and 1999. Those results are at odds with previous analyses of the same satellite data by John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), who found virtually no warming over the 20-year period.
Over the past 25 years, a series of instruments aboard 12 U.S. satellites has provided a unique temperature record extending as high as the lower stratosphere. Each sensor intercepts microwaves emitted by various parts of the atmosphere, with the emissions increasing as temperatures rise. These data are used to infer the temperature at key atmospheric layers.
Since the 1990s, the absence of an observed warming signal in satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures has stood in contrast to a distinct warming trend in temperature readings at the Earth’s surface. A 2000 report from the National Research Council concluded both trends might be correct--the global atmosphere might be warming more quickly near the ground than higher up. All theoretical climate models, however, predict a higher rate of warming for the atmosphere than for the surface.
The RSS group found a warming trend of 0.16º F per decade in the layer between about 1.5 and 7.5 miles high, compared to a trend of 0.02º F in the previously published UAH analysis. Both estimates have a margin of error of nearly 0.2º F (plus or minus). The RSS results would be a closer match with surface warming, as well as with computer-model simulations, and are therefore preferred by the NCAR group.
New Study Flaws
But the RSS results are most likely not correct.
Wentz presented the RSS analysis of the satellite data on December 4 in Washington, DC at a panel organized by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Christy, Santer, and I were members of the panel and heard his presentation, but there was no time for discussion of his startling results.
Wentz was kind enough to give me a copy of his full paper so I could study it. It is a careful piece of work that must be taken seriously, but that does not make it correct. I mailed him a number of comments, to which his coauthor, Carl Mears, responded. I then suggested they perform some crucial tests on the internal consistency of their results. There has been no reply so far. I also received comments from Christy discussing the weak points in the RSS work.
Independent atmosphere temperature data from radiosonde instruments carried aloft in weather balloons do not support RSS but agree with the UAH result of a negligible warming trend (which will become even smaller as the 1998 El Niño warming is gradually washed out). Of course, the balloon data have problems of their own that require correction.
But the surface data at weather stations are subject to large corrections as well. A most important one--and difficult to remove completely--is the well-known “urban heat island” effect. (See “Study Documents False Warming Trend,” Environment & Climate News, June 2003.) The urban heat island effect is the local heating produced over time by the expansion of housing, traffic, and energy consumption in the vicinity of city-based weather stations.
Finally, we have a large amount of non-instrument data from “proxies” for thermometers. Such proxies include measurements of the widths of tree rings, isotope data from ocean and lake sediments, ice cores and corals, etc. All of these can be calibrated in terms of temperature. I have personally examined many of these published results and have yet to find any that show a recent warming. It is another strong piece of evidence in support of the conclusion that the surface data from city-based weather stations are contaminated by local heating effects and cannot be relied on to support global warming.
If, as suspected, the RSS analysis is not correct, then the NCAR study is mostly hot air. As science journalist Ron Bailey points out: “Evidently, the strategy being used by Santer et al. is that if their models don’t agree with the data, then change the data.”
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and president of the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington Virginia. http://www.sepp.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Climatologists are "forecasters." It's one thing to have a hypothesis about something reproducible in controlled conditions, and is repeatable, it is a vastly different undertaking to try and extrapolate future dynamics, especially when your data and methods are flawed, and the scale covers an entire planetary weather system.
If, 100 years ago, we applied the methodology of the "climatologists" to the build-up of horse manure due to increased population needing more horses for transportation, we would now be up to our necks in horse manure. Ironically, this is an appropriate analogy for the current state of climatology.
[Added bbcode quoting -- Scratch]
__________________
"We find greatest joy, not in getting, but in expressing what we are...Men do not really live for honors or for pay; their gladness is not the taking and holding, but in doing, the striving, the building, the living. It is a higher joy to teach than to be taught. It is good to get justice, but better to do it; fun to have things but more to make them. The happy man is he who lives the life of love, not for the honors it may bring, but for the life itself." - R.J. Baughan
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by ScratchMonkey: 02-02-2007 08:57.
|
|
|
02-02-2007 08:41 |
|
|
ScratchMonkey
Ghost in the Machine
Registration Date: 11-10-2002
Clan: (M*)
Location: San Pablo, CA
|
|
|
|
02-02-2007 08:58 |
|
|
Aluzion
Tuque Collector
Registration Date: 03-03-2002
Clan: (MA)
Location: Montreal, Quebec
|
|
| RE: rebuttal of the NCAR report |
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Eeyore
FYI, NCAR members were co-authors of the latest "The sky is falling" scam we are seeing in the news.
|
A scam eh? The majority of the organizations who have profited from scamming are those arguing against global warming like the oil companies. I don't think the word 'scam' can be used to describe those supporting global warming because I don't know of anyone whom can profit from it.
I realise there are political gains to be had, but are there any companies or organisations that would profit by the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? If so, are any of these companies behind any of the thousands of supporting arguements?
__________________
[citation needed]
|
|
|
02-02-2007 08:59 |
|
|
|
