Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Water is a very unique molecule, as its states change in a fine balance, and condensation is formed by cooling.
The natural formations of clouds is surface heat vs upper air with water droplets condensing in the colder air, as the heat is pushed up from the ground.
One thing you elft off is, and I would like credible non GW related figures, of clouds reflection abilities, as when they form from heat, thru evaporation etc due to a higher content, pointing towards waters uniqueness, as of course if they have a high radiative effect at night, whats the tradeoff for clouds on solar reflection? As well as radiative effects, going out of the atmosphere.
Another slight subtlety I thought of is the earths shape, or egg shaped. Now I know its not much, but neither is .38 of 1% of the atmosphere, such as CO2.
If the angles are more severe in the southern atmosphere, the solar activities effecting the atmosphere must be somewhat lessoned, and the reflective capabilities of clouds increased, as theyre not flat, forming the earths shape, but their own.
Now, the warming clouds that have absorbed alot of IR, is more apt to loose its IR at night, due to higher concentrations/condensation, since the clouds release it IR in all directions, as any IR does, or, if there were no balance, this would have caused a relentless chain effect, and wed be nore like Venus than what we have today.
So the balance I refer to is obviously seen, and its the theory of upsetting this balance where GW comes in.
Since we know that CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, and that according to some measurments, the oceans acidict levels are increasing, this would surely have jappened inthe past, and a chain reaction would have occured already, and again, wed be another Venus.
I say this because our small much lessor and much slower impact isnt even comparable to ny previously described dissastors, especially Yellowstone, which does more than weve ever done in 1 eruption than out total accumulations, and it also occurs every 600,000 years, and has happened many times.
Now, its well documented that when this happened it spread debris dust that killed animales 1000 miles away within a day, as thats how far it spread in 1 day.
OK, now according to this:
Yellowstone eruption threatens nine-tenths of Earth's inhabitants
AKIN TO ASTERIOD COLLISION
With effects akin to a run in with a 1km diameter asteroid, Earth is ten times more likely to experience a super volcano eruption than a collision with an asteroid.

http://www.4ecotips.com/eco/article_show.php?aid=719&id=288

Now, my question is, since this is but a small asteroid compared to the Yucatan asteroid, which was 6Km in diameter, Im wondering to myself, who are the people behind the atnospheric reactions from such events?
If we saw the lessor wiped out 9/10s of all habitation, one 20 times bigger would do what?
But then again, theres this:
Were dinosaurs snuffed out by asteroid strike on India, not Yucatan?
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/10/shiva-impact-killed-dinosaurs.html
Now, what Im showing here is the vast disparity of our lack of knowledge on atmospheric impacts, and once again, mans evil nature, as each one of these "experts? attempt to reach for that gold ring, be the first etc etc, and ego becomes a huge part of "fact"
What is known about Yellowstone is, ashfall has been found 1400 miles away, and this after whatever events were created afterwords thatd effect such findings 600,000 years ago.
Someone, a climatologist has made their theories known of each one of these effects, and Im sure theyre as certain about their theory as possibly the same climatologists are about GW today.

Like I say, our meager contributions pale against these events, and to say we simply dont have the time just doesnt make sense to me.
I know about so called tipping points etc, and each event Ive described above is worse, and set off this tipping point, every 600,000 years for 1, while the asteroid impacts vary, and thats not the only asteroids we know of, as we see in the India possibility, as well as many other undiscovered volcanic effects/occurances on large scales, and I point out, the Yellowstone effect/impact wasnt discovered very long ago.
So, to say these dont matter, they do matter, as then, how did the oceans become less acidic for example? Whats the recupertive powers that made to dead oceans come back? And how can they say now our much less impact/effect/contributions over time, effects all this now? Explain the other, this we should know, and no guessing. We have the fossile evidence.
We have the event timing, the size, the amounts, even the ash spread on the Yellowstone disastor for example, yet again, we such a disparity within the climatologists themselves on all this, yet they all come together on GW?
Or, is it, who wants to be the first?
Regardless of fact.
The only thing that makes anything good out of this is, a few climatologists will to be made fools, and all within written history, and Im not saying which side, as Im sure both sides contributed to these "facts" on past events as well
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


You are now just rambling....
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


Rambling # 1:

Water is a very unique molecule, as its states change in a fine balance, and condensation is formed by cooling.
The natural formations of clouds is surface heat vs upper air with water droplets condensing in the colder air, as the heat is pushed up from the ground.
One thing you elft off is, and I would like credible non GW related figures, of clouds reflection abilities, as when they form from heat, thru evaporation etc due to a higher content, pointing towards waters uniqueness, as of course if they have a high radiative effect at night, whats the tradeoff for clouds on solar reflection? As well as radiative effects, going out of the atmosphere.


Water is no more 'unique' in this respect that any other molecule, or element for that matter. Give me a vial of mercury and a Ln2 tank, and I can pound nails with a mercury hammer. Hydrogen dioxide is only 'unique' in that it vaporizes (boils) at 100c @ sealevel, and freezes @ 0c @ sealevel. At upper atmospheric conditions, the boiling off is at much lower temperatures, and the re-condensation also takes either much higher pressures or much higher temperatures. So, above a certain altitude, hydrogen dioxide will only be found in the vapour form, not condensed. Clouds will only happen at certain altitudes, and under certain conditions.

Ok, on to clouds... Clouds will block a certain amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, but not all of it, as they usually cover only a certain percentage of the surface of the Earth.. Clouds will however be very effective in blocking land / ocean radiation from escaping the atmosphere. So more clouds, more more heat trapped. And the converse is also true, as paradoxically if there is enough cloud cover for a long enough period of time, there is less radiation reaching the surface, therefore less heat to radiate outwards. Look at the temperature fluctuations in various regions after Mt. Pinetubo erupted. Dust (volcanic ash) is a very effective solar screen, especially at the altitudes that this volcano (and others, such as Mt. St. Helens) can spew ash into. The effects of this can last for a few years in certain areas, until the ash falls out.

[Another slight subtlety I thought of is the earths shape, or egg shaped. Now I know its not much, but neither is .38 of 1% of the atmosphere, such as CO2.
If the angles are more severe in the southern atmosphere, the solar activities effecting the atmosphere must be somewhat lessoned, and the reflective capabilities of clouds increased, as theyre not flat, forming the earths shape, but their own.


The Earth is not 'egg shaped', but slightly oblate. ie, it is a bit wider in diameter at the equator than it is pole-to-pole. If you really want to make a third year class of physics majors scratch their heads, then ask them how much less one weighs at the equator than at either pole. Hint: There are several forces involved here.... OK, I just threw that one in for a chuckle, but it took me most of a semester to actually derive the answer.

If the angles are more severe in the southern atmosphere, the solar activities effecting the atmosphere must be somewhat lessoned, and the reflective capabilities of clouds increased, as theyre not flat, forming the earths shape, but their own.

This statement just made me go 'Huh?' There are too many things wrong in one sentence to even try to be able to craft a credible reply.

Now, the warming clouds that have absorbed alot of IR, is more apt to loose its IR at night, due to higher concentrations/condensation, since the clouds release it IR in all directions, as any IR does, or, if there were no balance, this would have caused a relentless chain effect, and wed be nore like Venus than what we have today.
So the balance I refer to is obviously seen, and its the theory of upsetting this balance where GW comes in..


Another 'Huh' statement. Clouds do not absorb heat, or else they would cease to be clouds, reverting instead to just free water molecules. Clouds do reflect some heat, but tend to pass quite a bit down to the Earth. What clouds do do, very effectively, is insulate the land (and ocean) from radiating heat out during your night. Fortunately, there is only ever so much cloud cover (normally) so this does tend to create a nice equilibrium. Nowhere in that statement do I see anything that's 'obvious'.

Since we know that CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, and that according to some measurments, the oceans acidict levels are increasing, this would surely have jappened inthe past, and a chain reaction would have occured already, and again, wed be another Venus.


Another 'Huh?' statement. Yes, the oceans are becoming more acidic. But outside of losing a lot of ocean life, and much more... How does this imply that we'd turn this planet into Venus? Or that it has ever happened in the past?

[iI say this because our small much lessor and much slower impact isnt even comparable to ny previously described dissastors, especially Yellowstone, which does more than weve ever done in 1 eruption than out total accumulations, and it also occurs every 600,000 years, and has happened many times.
Now, its well documented that when this happened it spread debris dust that killed animales 1000 miles away within a day, as thats how far it spread in 1 day.
OK, now according to this:
Yellowstone eruption threatens nine-tenths of Earth's inhabitants
AKIN TO ASTERIOD COLLISION
With effects akin to a run in with a 1km diameter asteroid, Earth is ten times more likely to experience a super volcano eruption than a collision with an asteroid.[/i]


Where to even start with these two concepts? I'll start first with the 'asteroid' event that happened ~ 65 M years ago. There is now much agreement that an asteroid ~ 10KM in size struck the Earth, with most agreeing that it landed near the present Yucatan peninsula. Ok, I'll accept that theory, for now... But what is in no doubt is that around that geologic time frame, there was a layer of indium deposited world wide. It is also generally accepted by most scientists that whatever caused this event, it changed the Earth's climate enough to cause mass extinctions of many (most?) species both animal and plant. Mostly speaking, the age of the 'thunder lizard' was over, as was the age of the giant fern. Something happened, and it was not Yellowstone not Krakatoa nor Taupo. Since there are many brighter minds than mine that lean to an asteroid in the Yucatan peninsula, I'll go with that theory for now.

Ok, now on to your volcanic theory. You have heard of plate tectonics, right? The Earth's plates float on something called the 'mantle'.Some move slower, others faster, but they all move. Now, the 'hotspots' that create most volcanoes, tend to be embedded in the mantle. Since the plates are moving, and the mantle is fixed, you get events like the formation of the Hawai'i island chain, or the islands of Japan. I doubt that one could date the Yellowstone area back ~65M years, and further I doubt that even if one could it would have enough of an effect to cause an indium layer worldwide. I also doubt that it has ever had the explosive impact of a Krakatao or a Taupo.

As to our small contributions (in comparison to these supposed 'catastrophic' events), take a 500 ml beaker of water, and heat it 1c per day for a week.... How much is left? Two weeks? (your beaker will run out of water after 7 days and a few hours.... But you knew that, right?)

OK, I have rambled on enough about your rambling. None of what I have offered up could be called 'proofs', but all are well documented theories in their various scientific disciplines. If need be, go back to uni for a bit and learn a bit more. (Can students in the US audit a course for the cost of the texts?)



 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Imagine 250 Mt Pinetubos at once, thats the scale of ash Im talking about.

Name another element that is needed for life?Water is unique, and I wont go into it, dont want to have to look it all up.

As to the weight disparity, if youre further away from the gravitational center, the less youll weigh, as well as a minimized spin effect. One needs only to look at Saturn to see this happening

Clouds are made up of water droplets, and do absorb heat, and is the mighest contributer of all global warming.
I had a link on how the spectrum was absorbed , didnt post it, but the wave links of water/clouds are more numverous than that of CO2, combined with the total amounts, 80x? greater, yes it.they do.
I was talking IR as well, not just solar, IR as in Infrared radiation. And it was in reference to clouds holding in the heat, which it does, but the atmosphere above the clouds, this is at night mind you, is much colder than without them, even tho the clouds are releasing IR in heat out of our atmosphere.

As for the oceans, if the marine life that uses the CO2 dies because of its acidity, then a chain reaction occurs, and is one of the many theories for Mars and its atmospheric/water loss. The CO2 levels would just keep escalating, as land plants are nothing in comparison to absorbtion rates.

From this link
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/10/shiva-impact-killed-dinosaurs.html

it says many dont believe this 10km asteroid was enough to do so, thus the disparity on the theories Im talking about. It says one 25km asteroid may have struck the India area

"Largest crater on the planet"


"If we are right, this is the largest crater known on our planet," Chatterjee said. "A bolide of this size, perhaps 40 kilometers (25 miles) in diameter, creates its own tectonics."

This one is said to be five times that of the Yucatan asteroid. And yes, again, theres much disagreement within circles as to what caused the dinos death. This may explain it all.
So, going back to the volcanic theory, youd be interested to know this has happened like clockwork every 600,000 years, not just 65 million yrs ago.
And yes, you may be interested to know, pinetubo was nothing in comparison, and the land there is being monitored, and is rising as we speak.

OK, now they may have been wrong back in the day, but I was taught that the earth was somewhat egg shaped, meaning the northern hemi was somewhat flatter and narrower at the pole, where the opposite was true of the southern hemi, and angles play a huge role in all this, as we see the gentle turning of the seasons, as the earths angle is changed in regards to the sun.
My thoughts/guess is, the angles being sharper in the south wouldnt collect the heat as well, and be a subtle enhancement overall , and further explains, even if so slightly, the southern hemispheres being cooler than the northen, and this predates our contributions as well.

Theres a four foot layer of ash from this event found 80 miles from where i grew up, and thats 1000 miles away from the center, or Yellowstone.
The mantle and crust have holes in it, caused by induction I think the word is, from the plates, but also, just holes, as the US was moving on the plates, the land literally folded upwards, and itas thinner and allows for the magma to be closer to the surface.
Thats how the rockies were made, and its created stretching and filling all across its region in the crust.


So, if one group disagrees on the Yucatan solution for the dinos demise, theres another in line, and we do know the Yellowstone event 600,000 yrs ago killed immediately within a days time 1000 miles away, en mass.

As these event have occured numerously, and no one can agree on their immediate huge impacts, as we all know about the summer that never was, its well documented, imagine something 250x greater, and yet, that too isnt completely understood or accepted, yet, with GW, it is, without a doubt, an some of the same people thats worked on these other theories are from both the GW and non GW camps, how are we then to be so certain of them?
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5


Erich von Däniken comes to mind here...
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Mt as in mount Pinatubo.

We can effect asteroid impacts, the US and China has shown this capability.

Name a subsatnce thats more dense at 39 degrees F at its denses, so it acts as its own insulator, thus preserving life on earth?

Ever see the rings of Saturn?

Not all mtn ranges are created by plate tectonics, Ill let you look that one up

My point is, everything I said above is fact, known, and accepted as truth.
Everything all the theorists are saying need to come under scrutiny, save for GW, and thats where I disagree, and pointing it out gets attacked, just like in the GW scientific debate in the climatology circles, as alot have already made their beds.

Ive never said we shouldnt, couldnt do more, effect at least to some minor degree our impact, Ive said all along, going in headfirst is akin to the NFL, itll give you a headache for sure.

As for CO2 on the sea floor, the balance is set, as since weve all mentioned plate tectonics, as they move, so too do undersea volcanic activities, raising the CO2 to the surface to be used by our ecosystem, which plays an overall part in its distribution for life on earth, and if we didnt have this activity, wed lose our water, our air, and wed be like Venus or mars, as admittedly, itd be more mars like if we didnt have the balamce than Venus.

So, if the under water caldrons stopped, the lack of CO2 would kill off all life, create a super heating, and disastor would occur.

Again, since we have facts, as I laid out, and we have theories, which is what GW and asteroid impact and their consequences, as well as the volcanic erruptions and theirs, they cant agree on any of this, and alot are the same peoples, but all are certain, especially the GW crowd, as there simply isnt any more room for theories here

It reminds me of alot of jack of all trades, good at many things, excellent at none, and this is because we simply dont know enough, and for those who claim they do, I point to my facts here, do they too have them?

PS If that one group has caaught the attention of NatGeo, it must be fairly credible, but like in all this, credibility can be hard to find
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Oh, Mt as in Mountain, missed that option. That make more sense :D

Name something else that life on this planet is based around? You asked for another element needed for life, Carbon is one of them - 'Carbon occurs in all known organic life' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Organic_compounds ). How does water act as its own insulator? There are plenty of substances that are more dense at 39 Fahrenheit. The specific volume (inverse of density) for it at 5C (the nearest to 39F on the table) is 1. The inverse of 1 is 1. So water's density is 1000kg per metre cubed. That's heavy, I'll grant you, but all metals bar the first 3 group 1 metals are heavier (they float on water fizzling and popping and it's all good fun), plus many other elements.

I have never personally seen the rings of Saturn, in pictures yes, but never with my own eyes. But what's you point?

I did look it up Mountain Range formation, that's how I came to that conclusion. - 'Orogenic (mountain generating) events occur solely as a result of plate tectonics.' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny ) If you can name me a mountain range that is not caused by subduction I'll accept your statement, but until then you will be wrong as Geologists say mountain ranges are created by tectonics.

I feel that the community supporting this is a lot less vocal than the far smaller community against it. I'd say that people who believe in Global Warming can be attacked as viciously, if not more, by those who deny it. Bringing sensible debate to the table is all well and good, but if they then refute perfectly good evidence, as you have, science is going to stop listening to them and move on.

A lack of atmospheric CO2 would cool the planet, not heat it. Obviously my point about imbalance didn't register with you. The universe is inherently imbalanced, from creation and in its creation it is imbalanced. Life would be non-existent without imbalance. The universe would be non-existent without imbalance. I don't feel that we are close enough to the sun to become like Venus, and we are too large to become like Mars.

But theories are based upon facts. One fact is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Another is that we have made the amount of it in the atmosphere increase by 35%. Furthermore we know that CO2 has tracked temperature (in phase or up to a 1000 years behind in geological past). We also know that temperatures have been increasing around the world, that ice sheets are melting more than if all things were equal, and that Arctic summer sea ice has reduced dramatically as of late. If another theory comes along that fits with the data better, scientists will, for the most part, be happy to jump ship to that theory. It's changing a point of view. It's a good thing to be able to do.

'Jack of all trades, master of none' is the phrase you may be searching for. You point out your facts here (though lots of them with limited relevance and many with lack of evidence), but the answers are, as ever, within the data. The graphs to show this data show a clear trend, one of increased temperatures across the world.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Below 39F its less dense, but doesnt freeze, as the ice forming above at 32F and lower, it insulates itself, otherwise, lakes/oceans would freeze solid.

The rings of Saturn are aligned to what on Saturn? Equator?

The community that supports GW does indeed receive some scrutiny, but nothing in comparison to those who oppose it. People have jumped on this wagon, defend it viciously, think its ok to hide all infos, demand it as fact, demand we make huge life changes, and have based this all upon theory.
This kind of action will also get plenty of reaction, and what we all need is more scrutiny on this, because if theyre right, we do need to change things much more efficiently, but as of this point, their past actions, their current ones, and the disallowing from others that scrutinize it doesnt sit well on my pallet.

The relevance is their lack of facts, and to my point. If they cant agree on past known natural disasters, where the very evidence is time and in the ground, why are we so sure about this? One ways or another.
Im putting both sides to the test here, not just disallowing one side, and its the prudent correct notion.

The lack of CO2 would kill all life, create an atmosphere thatd heat up, and water would be gone, save for whats underground. The balance that you say doesnt exist, prevents this from happening, as life itself is a requirement. Without the continual washing and scrubbing of the atnosphere by living organisms, we would eventually lose our atmosphere, no new oxygen being created, and the balance would be broken.

Acting as if these things happen just because doesnt mean theres no balance, and like the bees proliferation of many plants, or other animals specific need for certain plants etc, the evolved state is often mentioned after the case, while offering notjhing prior, so, yes, this scenario, ignoring what plants relied upon before bees and pollenation, or say boxelder bugs before boxelder trees were here neither explains, confirms nor is a proponent of balance, so is easy to see where people come in with this notion, and as such, look upon it in fascination rather than beauty of balance.

Going back to water, the thermalcline found there is essential for life on the planet, all of it, not just the makeup, and as lakes etc turn over, and the thermalcline desolves, its again this balance takes place, as the top waters become ice, to insulate the lower waters from freezing solid.
The furthermeant of this balance is seen where cold water and warm water fishes can co exist within this enviroment during winter and allows for diversification in mesotrophic lakes, some eutrophic as well, and in rarer scenarios, anisotrophic ones as well.

While it can be argued that this is not a needed requirement in any of this, it does show the balance of life, its climates, both in atmosphere, due to its heating/cooling effects in both scenarios, within our atmosphere, and below it.
To me, this is the beauty of nature itself, and while fascinating as well, it truly is a well balanced beauty nonetheless, but again, thats in the eye of the beholder.

The lack of CO2 wouldnt cause a green house effect, as all the heat would go straight to the surface, which heats much more efficiently than does CO2 does, as the bands within the spectrum from solar energy points this out. The earth would boil, lose atmosphere and water, for lack of oxygen itself, no new water being created, only less, itd be like Mars

It could be argued were too far or too close to the sun for it to either freeze like mars, or boil like Venus, and i havnt given that much thought.
CO2 exists thru life itself, as youve pointed out, natural disasters just dont make much. But even so, the fact that the earth is in its position from the sun again plays into this balance, where the eraths size, its rotation, its tilting of axis, the seasons, and all elements react to continually perpetuate life here, and is why I am concerned with our contributions, and dont take them lightly, but again, I see too much failing in our overall understanding of such things
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Right found the density thing. Understand now. But the oceans wouldn't freeze solid without this characteristic. Lakes, yes, but entire oceans?

Yes the rings of Saturn as with all gas giants in the solar system, orbit the equator. So what of it? I fail to see the relevance for global warming.

Differing ideas shouldn't be seen as a sign of disagreement. I have explained why information was withheld against sceptics, because scientist felt that their time was being wasted by spurious requests for data. It's not okay to hide all the info, but releasing it all has implications, as I mentioned some land owners may disagree with releasing information gathered on their property.

You don't seem to understand natures intrinsic imbalance do you? And I'll reiterate, a lack of CO2 in this atmosphere would not HEAT the atmosphere, it would cool it, more on that later. By definition the creation of this universe was an imbalance. If the universe were created equal nothing would exist in it. To create the universe itself forces need to be out of balance. This continues in nature, if everything were balance how would energy transfers take place? They couldn't. Populations of predator and prey are always in flux, they are never balanced. The creation of weather patterns of Earth are caused by solar radiation differentials across the atmosphere, an imbalance of solar radiation. Stars work by nuclear fusion, which to work needs an imbalance in the masses of reactants and products to produce energy. No natural system is balanced.

Your point on the lakes – Anisotrophy means being directionally dependant, you may be referring to Oligotrophic lakes. So I now have basic understanding of thermocline. But you do still need carbon for life, and that's what you asked of us.

You are talking about the removal of a greenhouse gas. Remove the gas and the atmosphere will cool down - ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect ) - with the mean temperature for the planet being -18 or -19 C. The Earth will not boil because of a loss in CO2, and the rate of atmospheric loss will not increase. As the atmosphere would remain, no Oxygen would be lost, and as Earth is larger than Mars it has more internal energy to keep tectonics and volcanic eruptions in action for billions of years to come, so we wouldn't become a barren Mars like landscape.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Once posted, infos can be scrutinized, since they were held in secrecy, this couldnt be done, its a certain path to ramming it down our throats.

The saturn thing was in reference to crocs statement earlier, and plays little part in any of this, if at all.

Youre misunderstanding
my view of balance, which Ive tried to describe, which is, other things exist to keep this balance, as both either work for or against each other, forming this balance.

Yes, it was Oligotrophic, its been awhile since Ive thought of these things, ty for the correction heheh
While I meant it the way I meant it is still misunderstood, and I understand you reaction, and havnt said you were wrong, Im trying to explain my point, one i said I didnt want to get into, but eventually I did, thus anis,,, Oligotrophic heheh, plus theres more, and so far, its uniqueness in the overall enviroment so far undersood as it pertains to earth, and earth alone, whereas carbon is a given, in all planets.

I take it, your terms for balance are different than mine, thats all. I mean interactions that create this balance which are constantly ongoing, which comes or forms what we have, which is the end result, thus the balance, offsets included.

Now, to understand, the loss of reflection would occur concerning the small amount of CO2 with its loss, there are other things which are greenhouse, and what youd describe as a tipping point would come thru lack of the cleansing nature does do.
Imagine a volcanoes effects without trees, pollen etc to help absorb all of its emissions and here, Im using the term loosely, while I know some are actually absorbd, like CO2 emissions from volcanoes themselves to particals caught by pollen, and taken down to earth quicker, etc.
This in its own right would increase our atmospheres count of potential greenhose effects, and here again, no one really knows how this would play out, very similar to CO2 emissions, not enough data, and could explain previous end of life disasters thats occured, since without life CO2 goes down, not up, and plants would die, and thered be the flip flop of what GW claim, cooling first, later heat, which may be whats happened in the past, but again, not enough infos, as with a tenporarily huge instant rise of emissions may have large life loss, immediate cooling would take place as well, being the atmosphere would be sooo polluted, or, it could go either way, depending on who you believe.
Ive heard it explained both ways, whereas, if you add enough to the atmosphere, it allows for heat, which melts the ice, which then becomes water aprticles, which block the suns rays, which then cool the planet.
Ive heard itll cause more heat, and only more heat, the reflections from increased clouds and emissions in our atmosphere wont correct this, and the tipping point arrives, and it just keeps getting hotter and hotter.
Thus my use of balamce, and all inclusions, ones we havnt seen, or dont simply understand. Thus my faith in all this, and those words are hard to swallow for some, understanding my POV is essential, as is anyones who are trying to understand one another, and by spitting on eithers truths/beliefs, is only discrediting this, whenall the while, a good dose of scrutiny is called for on each side.

So, putting that aside, since Ive seen both sides of the fence, Im not convinced one ways or another, since both bring good solid infos, but 1 is telling me to change my life drastically, while i wonder about the other side, as theyve been accused of not caring about something so essential, its just showing their incompetence, until I realise, its their opponents making these claims, with me in the middle
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


I've explained about the secrecy thrice. I won't explain it again.

I feel that you are misunderstanding the way the universe works. Nothing is balanced. If the universe were created balanced it would be empty, because if it were balanced the number of matter particles would equal the number of anti-matter particles and they'd all have annihilated together leaving nothing.

Carbons common nature doesn't change the fact that it is essential to life on this planet, and that is what you asked of us.

My terms for balance are the same as yours. Your next sentence though, means that your 'balance' is in fact imbalanced. If interactions that create balance are constantly ongoing then it's not balanced, because a balanced system needs no interaction to retain its balance because it's balanced.

The oceans could potentially take up at least some of the slack, as they have shown by absorbing a significant amount of our CO2 emissions.

Have GW supporters ever said heat first cooling later? No, because as with these cycles all you'd need to do would be to go back half a cycle and the statement would be reversed. Plant life does decrease with CO2 level, but it does the same with less water, nutrients, sunlight or oxygen.

The loss of ice cover should warm the planet, not cool it. Would cloud cover increase? Who knows, but at the poles cloud cover is already low, and the change from ice to a black-body (sea) would increase the temperature of it and by extension the atmosphere.

The issue about scrutiny is that the deniers evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny as well as the supporters evidence. The evidence has been scrutinised, nearly all released reports are done by groups of people who will scrutinise each others work and then is peer-reviewed, often by a panel of people. Understanding an opposite POV could be essential, but do you recognise mine?

Who on the side of the deniers is going to claim that they themselves don't care about the planet? Of course it comes from the opposite side, as does the deniers saying that supporters data is flawed, or its fraudulent. I'd like to see the 'good solid information' that the deniers can bring to the table.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
How did the CO2 levels change from 7000PPM to what we have today?
Is it faulty data for these numbers, or what did it? It almost sounds like, once its here, it cant ever leave.
I do know, the vents in the earth's oceans release the CO2 back into the atmosphere whether its acidic or not, and thats the proposed theory, over time, the 7000PPM was absorbed by the oceans, which didnt kill everything off thru acidity, so again, theres a hole, but again, I havnt heard the other side.

I ask you questions because I havnt denied your POV, but remain sceptical, because not long ago, alot of the theories have flip flopped, meaning, from this same group, we were heading into another ice age, and Im old enough to remember this as well, but no one panicked then, no one demanded huge change, and no one blamed man for it, tho it too could be argued for its coming as a tipping point if it were narrowly focused on a few things. Thus the reasons for my scrutiny, because its been both ways in my lifetime, and 1 doesnt deserve more credit than another, not without alot of scepticism and scrutiny, just so you know where Im coming from.

I know youre somewhat satisfied with the secrecy, but in the US, we have certain rights that preclude this secrecy, its what America is, no taxation without representation, if you will, and without full disclosure, it stikes against this in certain ways, so again, to show you where Im coming from. Americans left because having others controlling things without their direct input wasnt acceptable, and no, we dont delude ourselves in what goes on, without our knowledge, but we do get mad when we find out.
So, just so you know where I am coming from, you can see no explanation is ever going to be good enough to keep any infos from me, and trusting our leaders this much isnt in the cards.

How is CO2 made? Thru a balance, because itd be unbalanced if all things were even, and nothing interacted, whether its a blending, dependent, or a opposing reaction, thus balance.
Every sinner needs a saint, or there wouldnt be sin or goodness, etc I could go on and on with this, but I think you know where Im coming from.
My point about fascination hits home here, where those who see such conflicts as everything, and meaning as you put it, unbalanced, I see the beauty in it, and that transcends into deeper beliefs on both sides, for you, youre fascinated by this, because its all a wonder, since there is no balancing factor involved, and i respect that, but we can both see who my balancing factor is, and thus why I see the beauty in it, and to me, its as simple as that.
I explain this this way. If you have a belief that theres no reason for anything, its all an unbalance, theres no order, If you have a belief that these things were meant to be, then you see the beauty in its creation. I dont want to change the subject, and maybe youre just trying to give your POV, which is all Im doing here, and maybe we can agree with these words, meant in all respect.

So, if you have anything on how the massive amounts of CO2 that used to co-exist with like on the planet, which occurred during its peak of growth, at least thats what Ive been taught? If those levels were that high, and if it all sits on the bottom of the oceans, and if the venting creates more all the time, as the plates move, it makes up for the greater absorbtion of the overall oceans vs the small vent areas, but possibly thick with it from all the settling, sort of the recirculation of the oceans ability to supply the atmosphere with CO2 and cleanse itself, on a long term scale.
Im not claiming this, But if you have links, thatd be great
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


CO2 levels have dropped due to the evolution and expansion in plant life, oceans and the weathering of rocks acting as a sink. But the 7000ppm era was 500Mya (GEOCARB III Modelling). Plants, oceans and rocks had millions of years to absorb this CO2, and CO2 levels now are higher than they have been in the last 20 Million years.

When these high CO2 levels happened life was adapted to the harsher, more acidic conditions in the oceans, as it had been higher in the years proceeding this high point.

No-one panicked or demanded change then because, as I said before about the global cooling theory, by the time the media picked up on it temperatures had started to increase again, so the scientific backing wasn't as great, and the evidence lacking. The temperature decrease that was the basis for the global cooling scare was a lot less than the increase happening now.

I never said I was satisfied with secrecy, I merely questioned whether you would rather secrets be revealed even if they would reduce national security. If you feel that you have no secrecy, please feel free to go to Area 51 and demand entrance, or to demand access to various black projects that are taking place in the US. I doubt you'll get far. As such your 'rights' are either being infringed by the current government and all other before it until the 30s or perhaps earlier, or said constitutional right is actually an urban myth or exists but doesn't cover certain areas.

If 'all things were even' then that would be balanced, not imbalanced. I have no idea where you are coming from on this. Do you feel that a world with crime is just because it supposedly 'balances things out'? If everyone lived in harmony it would be a better world. There would still be sin, just not in the murdering kind of way, it would become lighter, such as for taking the Lords name in vain. I'm sure 'God' can take a joke.

The universe is imbalanced. It's as simple as that. If you can't understand that it is fine. But if you let religious beliefs get in the way of understanding or excepting that the universe is inherently imbalanced then it becomes less acceptable to me. Where does it say that the universe is balanced in the bible? I'm betting that it doesn't. The thing about this is that 'God' could easily have created the universe, and would have created it imbalanced, but many Christians still grasp to the fact that Earth's some 6000 years old, which is completely illogical. The are of course other that think, hang on, that's not very old, and radioactive dating puts it a lot older than that, maybe it's not 6000 years old, maybe it is about 4.5 billion years old (Not grouping you in either category). That doesn't mean that 'God' didn't create this universe and all within it, but, equally, it doesn't mean he did. 'God' has taken a back seat as far as wars and famines are concerned, so we need to fix global warming ourselves, rather than wait for divine intervention.

Each is of us is putting across a different point of view, but in my eyes as soon as anyone drags their Lord into an argument they loose some of their sway. Nothing personal, but I feel that scientific debates should be non-theist in their discussion, that religious ideology should be left at the door of most sciences. I believe that the reason we're here is pure luck. The reason I am not a kangaroo or anything else is chance, and the reason we are here is because of the catalysis of some inorganic compounds to form RNA, which later formed the first cells, which evolved in a manner to fill in niches and gaps caused by extinction, or to take advantage of a new food source, eventually leading to all the creatures we see today. This doesn't mean I don't see beauty in it, in fact it's quite the opposite, I see beauty among all the life on this Earth and it saddens me to think that much of it could find themselves with nowhere to turn if we can't stop global warming. The universe and Nature is imbalanced, but that doesn't mean that there is no order to it. But the order is itself pot luck, which is why galaxies come in all shapes and size, many are ordered and many are disordered, either by formation or via collision, but there is a certain aspect of order in the universe.

You've asked me to provide evidence, and I will, but I have a similar request regarding your claim that the peak CO2 occurred at the peak of the planets growth. Fossil records from the Cambrian are difficult to acquire, and getting a diversity estimate harder still, but it's felt that it life is more diverse now in the present age than it ever has been. Here pretty much all you need to know - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle – sediments form on the bottom, as I said. Over time they are slowly subducted beneath another place and enter the mantle. Some is released via volcanic activity, but what proportion I don't know, but some is released. Much remains locked in sediments, some in biomass, some in the ocean, some via weathering (which is hard to re-release according to the article). The Carbonate-Silicate cycle is believed to have scrubbed much of the CO2 from the earlier atmosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate-silicate_cycle ).
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
OK, flipped on to a channel green , watched it a few times, and this morning theyre talking about global warming, and have actors from hollywood doing a ficticious event on hurricanes, increased hurricanes etc, all from GW and CO2,
To their credit, they introduced me to a Dr Lindzen from MIT.
From there I found these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html?refresh=on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2446-climate-changge-claims-bizare-says-lindzen
And last, but certainly not least, these, especially important for our friends across the pond
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/bbc-swaps-coldest-december-since-1981-headline/
http://www.google.com/search?q=Coldest+December+since+1981%E2%80%8E+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bbc_coldest_since_1981.png


Now, if anything, it appears theres real people profering different ideas, credible people at that, and not to just be moved aside

As to secrecy and national security, you gottas be kidding me right?
Understand, we allow our military certain rights because of their sacrifices, and their enduring level of excellence towards the US and its peoples.
To confuse this with something such as GW just doesnt fit.
Regular Joes work in area 51, theyre assigned there by their superiors, I see no such things happening in the GW network.
Regular Joes arent privy to this info, or allowed near it, nor did they start a commitment for 4 years of their life to only end up there as well.
2 differing things.

No excuses, let people panick if they need to, the sooner they get done with it the better, because, it has to come out, we have no time anyways right? Sounds counter productive to me, to hide the findings, the methods, what data is used, what is destroyed etc, especially since in 2-3 years our north pole will be absent of ice? The polar bears will be heading for exstinction quickly, the whole biosphere of that region will undergo a severe change, and the media will be alllll over it, so sure, hide the infos, hide the way its being done, hide what was and wasnt used, hide the rounding of numbers, 1 way or anotrher, because in 2-3 years, this is going to make them look good right?
Because people will forget they held this info from us, and thatll be good enough?
Where do you think the anger from all the panick will be directed?
And guess where theyll end up?
Probably behind the weapons and secrecy in area 51 for protection, thats where.

No, it makes no sense to hide any of it at all. We can throw the bums out if our leaders fail us, but the last time I looked, these people heading the GW thing havnt been elected, and those officials who follow this and include its secrecy as the norm are doomed if this is a bust.
Thus our forgiving attitudes towards some things being held secret and others not so well accepted.

The Dr Lindzen isnt buying it, and he too hasnt had privy infos of what wasnt included as the driving infos of GW conclusions, and even offers evidence of destroying such unknown, unused info/data.

When BBS, the left of the left hide the coldest Dec since 1981, and Al Gore is as left as they come, and the Nobel peace commitee reads like a "who can do the leftist thing wins" group, and reward and award such as Al Gore, it becomes a mindset over matter, but secrecy is a must?


Somethings you dont know, and need to know, at least about the bible and christians.
Originally there was no sin, wasnt even a word, it hadnt existed yet, not within creation, so til this point, everything was as God planned.
With the introduction of sin, a balance had to be put in place, to make up for this loss of purity if you will. How things functioned and worked back then, no one knows, it didnt rain, nothing died etc, but with sin, things changed to what we have today. It could be argued that time itself started with sin

So that how its viewed and how it happened, and as for religious beings being adaptable, just as we learn in life, we learn/grow in our understanding of all things, including creaion.
Its getting more and more that the "belief" in christians that the earth is only 6000 yrs old is akin to those same christians that grew to learn that the earth wasnt flat, as everyone believed back then, towards their fellow chraistians that still cling to 6000 theories/beliefs.

This of course doesnt make God wrong, or 1 man better or greater than another, but hopefully all of us the wiser for it. Its happened too many times, and any beliefs that arent challenged arent any good, and todays information age challenges some of those beliefs, but it doesnt mean most have abandoned them. Like I said, read CS Lewis science fiction books, his trilogy about space, and not the Lion the witch and the wardrobe

TY for the links, and is what Id read similarly earlier, and its something little understood, as it hasnt garnered alot of attention/monies for this, but does play a part in all this, to what degree no one knows

Again, I didnt want to change tracts, and i was but offering not only my POV concerning the term balance, but why, to help you see how I formed it.
I of course understand your POV, as this is the world in which we live, and cant escape it, and how things are done, since were no longer living in the days of the inquisition, thank God
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
on the OT.... just because some researchers were dishonest does not mean that the entire community is, which is overwhelmingly supportive of global warming.

It's as if I were to say that all republicans are flaming closeted homosexuals just because a few have turned out to be.

Please.... get rational.



On the topic of global warming...

The Earth's distant atmosphere has shrunk in size. Gases shrink when cooled.
The distant atmosphere is shrinking for two reasons:
1) Decreased solar radiation from the sun due to inactive period.
2) Green House gas and Green House Effect ( reflection ) prevent radiation from bouncing back into the distant atmosphere ( which would heat it up).

As more co2 and Green House gases are emmited, this trend will continue. The lower atmosphere will continue to thicken, and the distant atmosphere will continue to cool and shrink.

Fact: Less radiation is being reflecting into space due to Green House gas.
Fact: Less radiation to space leads to increased ambient temperature.

There have been many blind studys on global warming statistics, done by TRAINED statisticians which indicate no cooling trend, there is no point to debate these findings.

And everyone knows that conspiracy theorists and internet ranters are ignorant 99% of the time.


Let me paint a picture for you.

The Earth is relatively new and has virtually no free oxygen in the atmosphere, and has virtually no ozone. There is a load of co2. Primitive organisms tear up the co2 and produce oxygen, at the same time sequestering carbon into the ground and ocean. Thick ozone forms and allows complex life to develop. Humans show up, and by now, millions of years of carbon sequestration have produced fossil fuels. Humans then begin to reverse the process in an attempt to destroy complex life.

The Ozone will be destroyed as carbon is combined with oxygen ( reducing free o2 to produce o3). The Ocean's PH will change. The ambient temperatures will go up. Stuff will die off.

No charts needed.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Scientists often put forward different ideas, that's why I have always said the scientific consensus is that Global Warming is happening and that it's man-made, rather than all scientists believe that. Of course some scientists disagree, of course there are competing theories, but none have the scientific consensus, or large amounts of evidence behind them. And remember many, if not most deniers have no qualifications in this field, many were formally paid by Oil and Gas companies and many used aggressive tactics in the early days of the theory.

You are the one who brought up secrecy, I merely made the point that there are other secrets out there that you aren't allowed access too, despite your 'certain rights that preclude secrecy'.

Nobody ever should have said that the North Pole was to be free of ice in 2-3 years (if such a claim was made). Your arguments are exactly why it shouldn't have been said, sceptics pick up on it and believe that climatologist have unanimously agreed that this will happen, when the reality is that estimates for a sea-ice free summer range from 2013-2050 (2013 seems a little too soon for me). I've stated before why data has been 'hidden', I won't explain it again. I'm sorry that the data isn't freely available, but if it were what the heck would you do with it? When it takes scores of people work on the data, sometimes for years, what could you hope to achieve on your own? If the data was released, would you know how to standardise it, to make it into a graph that actually means something, rather than just leaving the raw data in a table were you found it.

I never said it made sense to hide any of it, from my first post - 'the information should have been freely available in the first place'.

The scientific consensus remains. Dr Lindzen may not be 'buying it', but he is far outnumbered by those who think that it is happening.

Firstly the name of the organisation is the BBC, not BBS. BBS are a German wheel manufacturer. Secondly, unlike in the US, public broadcasters have to be politically neutral here, and not show any form of bias. The BBC are not the 'left of the left', far from it, they have to remain politically neutral. It's positively laughable that Al Gore could ever be considered 'as left as they come'. More left than Trotsky, Lenin or Stalin? To quote you - 'you've gotta be kidding me right'.

You never mentioned CS Lewis previously, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was part of the Chronicles of Narnia, rather than just one book on its own.

I like how you feel that we are not living in 'the days of the inquisition', but the reality of many people in this world is that they live in as bad if not worse conditions than those suffered in the inquisition. Darfur, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe are all in terrible states, so you can thank 'God' for nothing, because the inequality of this world is certainly something that his 'son' would never have preached. This is because Jesus was a Communist. 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me' and 'Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' He wasn't a fan of rich people really. It's one of the things I find funny about Americas strongly Christian culture.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Last point first, Americans are known to give the most as well, sacrifice their lives etc, so, its easy for me to see this, and always a good reminder for those who have much.
If youve read the bible, God needs to step in, before man destroys the world, sound familiar here?
Im saying GW could be just part this destruction, as Im flexable and not a rigid stuck in the mudder.

I mentioned The lion witch wardrobe simply because most people know it this way, til the movie was made, my mistake I guess, but it isnt was I refering to.
Its about a man who travels thru space, finds 2 societies, and it all fits within Gods plan, or His balance so to speak. Ive been trying to show you all along, I dont like being pidgeonholed anymore than all GW believers, like when Al Gore makes the statement the north pole will be devoid of ice within a few years, 3 maybe, but none the less, he "won" the Nobel prize, which I also made reference to their particular brainthrust.

So, disaster happens, we all die,people are poor, kill each other, is that fair? Read Job, all Im going to say, maybe then youll understand some peoples peception of God is way off, Job helps put things like this into perspective.

I also said above in an earlier post, we dont delude ourselves about our government from hiding things, and sometimes it turns around on those people and it ends up biting them on their backsides. I also mentioned CS Lewis way back as I said just a bt ago, and its an eyeopener for those who have certain ideas about christians in general, but I did so off handidly, to avoid the belief issue, as i said, I didnt want to go off track.

As to aggressive tactics, the oil companies had just as much incentive to go against this as governments and the GW followers to go after this aggressively, money. Power, Prestege etc So as I said, its a flip flop, and is truly a shame more Dr Lindzens didnt start sooner and louder, so maye wed all at least know more about this, and to those who believe its happening, the same who dont, they dont know what they need to know, so this is why a true scepticisn need to continue, until all factds are laid on the table, and a good portion of people are involved, but like anything else, its met with apathy.

Al Gore is considered a huge leftist in the US because of his governments continued invovement with people in their lives, the solutions where they come from, and his overall social beliefs. Hes way worse than Clinton ever was, tho at Times for asomne things Hillary can give him a go. But Bill? He moved cautiously to the left, and where needed as well.

So, now you know, Al Gore made the claims, he won the Nobel, hes been invited to the largest conbention for scientists as the special speaker.
A fellow from MIT and another from MIT are against GW in basic ending points, looking at chaos to some its balance and its beauty, to others, its a facsination of disorder, and to me, understanding both positions are important and fine for either side, to avoid confusion, and bring respect and possibly new ideas/ideals in our lives,

Someone oversees the entire thing, someone else makes the info thru checks,someone else compiles the info, and someone else assembles it for presentation, now, limiting the amount of blame goes further than a few with no connections, or very little, and its rational to seek those who did this, and boot em out, as we would any elected official, as it seems theyre going after my money thru taxation, and I want my representation, and for it to be open, and not happen again.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

So, it was 5 years, but this was last year, so 4 years.
Now, since that movie and Al Gores connection of these people wasnt that long ago, using these numbers even back then shows just how little they know, and or are fudging the real numbers, if there are any, as Im sure they fluctuate, and hits home with boths credibility, not just Al Gores.

Digging further in search of this Dr, I found these :

So, what we do with the ocean and ice simulations which prescribe realistic atmospheric forcing, we're trying to validate the models with the valid observations from satellites and in situ, field observations. And then eventually look at parameters that are not readily available from observations to fill out the gaps of the missing information and probably synthesize this information together with observations to eventually come up with a bigger picture evolving in time and space.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma

This means you have to include the assumptions of GW in with the data, and further add synthetic data to arrive at these numbers. and this is where my sceptism starts

This is turning into a war of phrases. Maslowski tells the UK Telegraph: “I was very explicit that we were talking about 'near-ice-free conditions' and not 'completely ice-free conditions' (as Gore claimed) in the northern ocean.”]
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4483/Brochure-reveals-Gore-accurately-cited-scientists-prediction-of-icefree-Arctic--It-is-the-Scientist-who-has-the-explaining-to-do--not-Gore

Matthew Wright: Ok. So now, it was reported in The New York Times that you said that 2013 was a possibility, and perhaps you'd actually projected this some years ago, that we could lose the summer sea ice extent - that's in the summer solstice is it?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: That is correct.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma

Maybe it was 2-3 years? Another reason for scepticism?

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco



Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records


More details


Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Sensationalism? man being inherently evil? Money? Power? Notoriety?
Is this how the rest work as well? How much of what data was included in what in other studies? And to what conclusions? Its as i said, its coming home to roost for the early predicters, and if this is totally wrong, soon others will fall as wwell, but, we must rush in, sacrifice alot, not a little?
As this keeps happening, and ironically, this may prove to be but the tip of the iceberg, we may miss out on the reality of all this, or, it may turn out to be the biggest hoax ever played.
Thats why I side for scepticism
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Read further onwards, Maslowski said 'It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at'. Once again it's not what climatologists believe, and with models predicting a 37 year range of complete sea ice retreat 75% is a lot of certainty to put on a lower range figure. I'd like to point out that in this case the speech was made on December the 15th 2009, so it wasn't last year in summer terms, which is what he would be saying – 5 to 7 summers. So his estimate for an ice free summer is 2015 to 2017. This isn't 2-3 years and this isn't something that scientists agree on. Reading even further on proves this disagreement - '[Gores] speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.'

Your scepticism (thought you hadn't chosen a side?) shouldn't start there. What he is saying is that he is filling the gaps in certain aspects where there is no data. Where there is data not synthesising is used, but where gaps in observations appear they 'synthesise this information together with observations', i.e. use the data they have to predict the data they don't. They don't do this with data they has available – 'look at parameters that are not readily available from observations to fill out the gaps of the missing information'.

Your second passage from the interview is not a reason for scepticism, it's a reason to read the language used in the interview. 'You said [an ice-free summer in] 2013 was a possibility' followed by correct. A possibility, not a certainty, and as shown by my earlier paragraph, it's far from agreed upon by the main body of science.

As for your last BBC passage – I've said before that the majority of scientist don't agree with these early predictions. I don't feel that this is how all the rest work, such claims are nonsense. Truth is that the reduction in sea ice is happening very quickly, especially following the collapse of 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png This shows that the sea-ice has been trending downwards since about the 1960s for summer, and the 1970s for annual sea ice cover. On the summer curve you can see the 2007 collapse but also that the collapse haven't been as great for 2008 and 2009. This nice .gif show the reduction in Arctic sea ice since 1982 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice (see note). See the reduction? If not maybe you should get your eyes tested.

Note - would provide link but unfortunately it has this blighter in it :D, and it won't turn off. It'sjust slightly down the page.
 

rnalvine

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
30
0
18,530
0
Arctic sea ice area has actually been increasing for 3 consecutive years since reaching recorded record lows in 2006.

Going arctic ice-free by during the next decade would certainly be quite a shock, especially with global temperatures on a cooling trend since reaching recorded highs in 1998.

Yes, the earth may be getting warmer, but then the area where I reside was covered by a glacier 20,000 years ago. So, I must conclude that on the whole, the earth has been getting gradually warmer for the last few hundred centuries, without any significant contribution by the activities of man (except, perhaps until recently.... perhaps).

The 'settled' science on the matter continues to be revised:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Sea Ice coverage has been increasing in annual terms since 2007 after the sea ice collapse of that year, 2007 was the recorded low, not 2006. The level of ice in the arctic is now (2009 data) about 2 million square km less than it was pre-1970 levels. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Seaice-1870-part-2009.png

The earth is getting warmer, but the fact that during the Last Glacial Maximum your area was covered in ice is irrelevant as the natural cycle has been broken. We are in an interglacial period, so there aren't large areas of continental ice cover, but we are warming the planet. The earth was covered in ice, then it wasn't covered suddenly, over a relatively short space of time, and we know that CO2 levels have matched warm periods (either lagging by upto 800 years or in phase). The activities of man pre-industrialisation were pretty limited, and it's nice to see that your feel the humanity has something to do with the warming ('perhaps' ;) ).

Do you have any evidence for a 'cooling trend' since 1998? Every piece of evidence I've seen shows a warming trend from about 1980 onwards.

As for the article, I don't know where Mr Knorr is coming from on that, because CO2 data from ice sheets, dating 200 years or so ago, and CO2 samples from the atmosphere show a marked difference, according to pretty much every other analysis of it. (284 ppm vs 387ppm)
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,033
0
20,810
5
Personally, I don't CARE what happens outside of Australia. Unfortunately, it is impossible for any nation to stop its pollution at its borders, so what happens up north DOES affect us in the southern hemisphere. Our ozone hole is larger, primarily because of pollution that gets circulated down to the south pole. Melanoma is very high in Australia and New Zealand. Burn time is usually down to <18 minutes...

Just this week our bureau of meteorology issued its climate report for 2009. Link included below.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml

BTW, their datasets ARE available, and linked from within the above link. Slice it and dice it however you want to, it is not a good look.
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
On the topic of scientists fudging data...

Scientists do not make a lot of money. They went to school for 8+ years too, knowing they would not make a lot of money. If they wanted money they would have become doctors or went into bomb making/defense.

These scientists did not fudge so that they can keep their grants and research a bunch of B.S. science - they did it because they thought that they needed to in order to help beat that dead horse into the thick brainless skull of some people. They were that concerned. It was wrong, sure. But don't think it was for the money.

Don't get me wrong, some scientists are corrupt, no doubt - these folks are generally not competing for grants, however - they get money from other places...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS