The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster

[achilles]

I dont know what else should be said to seriously alarm certain people. Man does not affect climate huh? Have a good read...


By Steve Connor, Science Editor in Washington
19 February 2005


Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming sceptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre.

They analysed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. Dr Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," Dr Curry said. link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=612506)

[Herrmannek]

rofl , BS :)
Greens are like a guys from SlimFast, they will tell you everything you want to buy their product... Earth is self regulating structure. We will use all flamable materials long before real disater could start....

[achilles]

rofl , BS :)
Greens are like a guys from SlimFast, they will tell you everything you want to buy their product... Earth is self regulating structure. We will use all flamable materials long before real disater could start....

Hermannek this is one the most stupid posts i have seen lately. Before labeling 'BS' an article that is based on long-lasting, solid research do a bit of homework first. Try dealing with terms like 'ecosystem resilience', 'atmospheric carrying capacity' and 'environmental threshold points'.

Or you can stick to the view that this planet is a self-regulated system no matter what we do. We are part of it ;)

[EffJi]

In the words of George Carlin:
"We've been around for what 10000 years? We've been doing heavy industry for 200 years. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. You really think we can do that much damage?"

They have compared the temperature for the last 40 years and they think they have evidence?
Still, it's not a good reason for that jackass not to sign the kyoto treaty.
Clean air is always a good thing.

[von_Moo142]

I thought this was a pretty robust way of establishing a link beween greenhouse gas levels and warming. A good bit of research, IMO.

IIRC, they will publish in Nature or Science soon. That alone indicates the quality of the work. If you don't beleive in this type of thing, go to the library when this comes out and read the article.

[Nordic Fire]

rofl , BS :) Greens are like a guys from SlimFast, they will tell you everything you want to buy their product... Earth is self regulating structure. We will use all flamable materials long before real disater could start....
Yes, and us human beings - regardless of our nationality - are a part of that self-regulating structure: mess too much with the nature and you can wave good bye to the human race.

It's kind of funny that you refer to us Greens as people who're "selling a product". We're not really selling anything except common sense backed up by science. It's the corporate world and their flunkies like you who'll have to work up a sweat if you wish to sell more lies in the future.

[achilles]

Why Bush advisers fight the evidence on climate change (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612488)

[Weasel]

There wasn´t a doubt that mankind causes global warming, was it?

[EffJi]

The thing is:
At first, the earth was a burning peice of rock. With temperatures much, much higher than today. Troughout it's existence, earth has undergone a large number of climate changes.
Studying the last 40 years is bull****. Studying the last thousand years is bull****. If we get into the last million years it's a little less bull****, but bull**** nonetheless.

[achilles]

There wasn´t a doubt that mankind causes global warming, was it?

There was allright. Many studies arguying in favour of anthropogenic global warming were suffering from serious technical difficulties but still couldnt have been discarded the way they have.

Now its quite consolidated. Whats next? Action :|

[achilles]

The thing is:
At first, the earth was a burning peice of rock. With temperatures much, much higher than today. Troughout it's existence, earth has undergone a large number of climate changes.
Studying the last 40 years is bull****. Studying the last thousand years is bull****. If we get into the last million years it's a little less bull****, but bull**** nonetheless.

I dont see why we need a time series of several billion years in order to draw inference on earth's changing climate. No doubt, the larger the sample the better but when a correlation is significant...well...it is!

As is the case with the linkage between man-induced emissions and temperature.

[Herrmannek]

rofl , BS :) Greens are like a guys from SlimFast, they will tell you everything you want to buy their product... Earth is self regulating structure. We will use all flamable materials long before real disater could start....
Yes, and us human beings - regardless of our nationality - are a part of that self-regulating structure: mess too much with the nature and you can wave good bye to the human race.

It's kind of funny that you refer to us Greens as people who're "selling a product". We're not really selling anything except common sense backed up by science. It's the corporate world and their flunkies like you who'll have to work up a sweat if you wish to sell more lies in the future.

Common sense? I believe this is only product you don't have on stock even for your own use, not even saying about selling it :)

[von_Moo142]

The thing is:
At first, the earth was a burning peice of rock. With temperatures much, much higher than today. Troughout it's existence, earth has undergone a large number of climate changes.
Studying the last 40 years is bull****. Studying the last thousand years is bull****. If we get into the last million years it's a little less bull****, but bull**** nonetheless.

That's irrelevent to this study though. The study shows how the recent warming trend has been caused, at least in part, by the increasing carbon dioxide levels observed during the same time.

The fact that many climate changes occur over a geological timescale doesn't mean that climate changes cannot also occur over a shorter period of time.

[achilles]

Common sense? I believe this is only product you don't have on stock even for your own use, not even saying about selling it

http://www.the-hammerheads.co.uk/images/hammerheads/Ian-shocked-what-me.jpg

Whatever suits you fine Hermannek :petting:




p-) :lol:

[von_Moo142]

Herrmannek: We aren't talking about a study written by a bunch of fringy ecologists. Read the article again.


Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans.

[Herrmannek]

I've read it. In Shortcut some bunch of people made a computer model and made their thesis on results they got from runing it... considering that even most complicated computer models are very rough compared to real word and fact that people can't predict a weather in three days advance using strongest computers on the world makes me Believe this is another BS story with BS scientist who builded an oversimplistic model to proove their thesis... Get over with it... For every such model i can give you ten 10 other saying something completly oposite...

[Weasel]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.

[Herrmannek]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.

Scientist will say everything people want to hear or to get a few pages in magazine with big impact factor...

[joka]

I've read it. In Shortcut some bunch of people made a computer model and made their thesis on results they got from runing it... considering that even most complicated computer models are very rough compared to real word and fact that people can't predict a weather in three days advance using strongest computers on the world makes me Believe this is another BS story with BS scientist who builded an oversimplistic model to proove their thesis... Get over with it... For every such model i can give you ten 10 other saying something completly oposite...

Yes, well we aren't talking about people who are predicting the future but analyzing what happened in the past. So you're argument holds no ground.

It's simple, it costs money to be enviromental. Being enviromental isn't the Texas way, making money is.

Even if globalwarming wasn't a human caused phenomena, it can't be wise to pollute.

[achilles]

I've read it. In Shortcut some bunch of people made a computer model and made their thesis on results they got from runing it... considering that even most complicated computer models are very rough compared to real word and fact that people can't predict a weather in three days advance using strongest computers on the world makes me Believe this is another BS story with BS scientist who builded an oversimplistic model to proove their thesis... Get over with it... For every such model i can give you ten 10 other saying something completly oposite...

10 more? Why dont you hit us with it then? I ll give you a discount...post 5 models advocating that global warming has nothing to do with human activities.

Hermm give it up man, you dont know what you are talking about :hug:

[achilles]

I just wanted to break up this post of yours just to put the discussion on a different basis...or rather...on a basis.


I've read it. In Shortcut some bunch of people made a computer model and made their thesis on results they got from runing it...

Did you read it? Look back at the article and tell us exactly who this bunch of people are. Sure, they run a model in order to reach their conclusions. Do you know any other way of conducting empirical science?


considering that even most complicated computer models are very rough compared to real word and fact that people can't predict a weather in three days advance using strongest computers on the world makes me Believe this is another BS story with BS scientist who builded an oversimplistic model to proove their thesis...

Weather prediction is based on computer model-simulations while statistical investigation on climate change is based largely on regressing empirical observations. Oranges are usually sour as opposed to apples that are more on the sweet side ;)

You said oversimplistic...you havent seen the model i guess...have you seen any ecological-economic-environmental models? If you havent, your talk is as good as fresh air :D


Get over with it... For every such model i can give you ten 10 other saying something completly oposite...

While you are at it, think again of the BS issue :lol:

[Herrmannek]

Of course number of oposite models was rethorical figure :)..
Anything else stil bears the point.. Only way to prove who was right is to wait 50 years..then i will resurect the topic to show you I was right :)

[oscarsierra]

Friday, February 18, 2005
By Steven Milloy

Feb. 16, 2005, is a day that may well live in scientific and economic infamy. That’s the day that the international global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol (search) went into effect around the world — but, fortunately, not in the U.S. and Australia.

The treaty calls for the 35 industrial nations that ratified it to reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, to below 1990 levels by 2012.

At JunkScience.com, we proclaimed Feb.16 to be the first annual “Hot Air Day — Save your breath. Save the planet. Stop exhaling…” After all, you wouldn’t want your carbon dioxide-laden breath to contribute to any alleged warming of the Earth’s atmosphere or cause any extreme weather events.

On a more serious note, we also installed two counters at JunkScience.com to estimate the costs and benefits of the Kyoto Protocol.

Similar to the famed National Debt Clock (search) near Times Square in New York City, one counter racks up the immense compliance costs of the Kyoto Protocol, conservatively estimated for the counter’s purpose at $150 billion per year.

If the astronomical compliance costs don’t impress you, we’ve got another counter — one that shows an estimated running total of the potential “warming” avoided by the treaty’s restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.


Both global warming skeptics and advocates agree that the potential amount of warming that hypothetically might be avoided through Kyoto Protocol implementation is roughly 0.07 degrees centigrade by the year 2050.

So to be able to show any activity on the clock, we had to go out nine places to the right of the decimal point — that would be potential temperature changes on the order of a billionth of one degree Centigrade.

Combined, the two counters indicate that the Kyoto Protocol costs roughly $100,000 to “prevent” just one-billionth of a degree of warming. So at the bargain price of just $100 trillion, the average global temperature could theoretically be lowered by 1 degree Centigrade.

That’s why we think of the Kyoto Protocol more as a “global economic suicide pact” than as an “international treaty.”

If the estimated cost-benefit analysis of the Kyoto Protocol isn’t sufficiently shocking, let me draw your attention to an article in the Feb. 14 Wall Street Journal exposing the top secret “junk science” behind global warming hysteria.

The article, entitled “In Climate Debate, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Leads to Face-Off,” reported on the controversy over a graph of, supposedly, the average global temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. The graph is nicknamed the “hockey stick” because of a sharp spike upward, meant to represent 20th-century temperature increases.

“The eye-catching image has had a big impact. Since it was published four years ago in a United Nations report, hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers have used the hockey stick in presentations and brochures to make the case that human activity in the industrial era is causing dangerous global warming,” reported the Journal.

But the hockey stick has been way oversold.

Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian minerals consultant who has spent a great deal of time and (his own) money studying the graph says that, for one thing, the mathematical technique used to draw the graph is ****e to generating hockey stick-like graphs even when applied to random data. So the hockey stick graph data proves nothing according to McIntyre.

McIntyre would like to do more research on the hockey stick, but the graph’s author, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, is blocking that effort.

McIntyre requested the raw data Mann used to construct the hockey stick. But after initially providing some information, Mann refused further cooperation, claiming he doesn’t have time to respond to “every frivolous note” from nonscientists, according to the Journal.

While McIntyre thinks there are more errors in the method used to develop the hockey stick, Mann refuses to release the requested computer code claiming that, “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” reported the Journal.

But asking for a scientist’s data and methods for purposes of evaluating scientific conclusions is part-and-parcel of the time-honored traditions known as the scientific method and peer review — it’s hardly “intimidation.”

Moreover, Mann’s research was funded by U.S. taxpayers through the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It’s simply unfathomable that Mann thinks he can secrete his publicly-financed data and methodology from independent review by interested members of the public — particularly when he and other global warming promoters are trying to use his results to change public policy.

Maybe we should add a third counter — one representing the number of days Mann hides his dubious data from the public that paid for it.

I just thought I'd throw that in here.

[achilles]

Of course number of oposite models was rethorical figure :)..
Anything else stil bears the point.. Only way to prove who was right is to wait 50 years..then i will resurect the topic to show you I was right :)

Ok, lets ignore mounting evidence and take action after Poland becomes an island.

[Weasel]

Anybody has a prove that the world is not a disc?

Scientist say whatever you want to hear. ;)

[Group9]

On your mark, get set, PANIC.

[achilles]

On your mark, get set, PANIC.

Panic? No...Action? Yep

[Herrmannek]

I just wanted to break up this post of yours just to put the discussion on a different basis...or rather...on a basis.


I've read it. In Shortcut some bunch of people made a computer model and made their thesis on results they got from runing it...

Did you read it? Look back at the article and tell us exactly who this bunch of people are. Sure, they run a model in order to reach their conclusions. Do you know any other way of conducting empirical science?
I don't give a **** who they are. First lesson of good scientist is to not believe authoritets. As for methods , If you build a model you do that to veryffy it later, they stired **** right after they got results from runing it vithout any valid verification and called It ULTIMATE PROOF :cantbeli: ... Wich in case of global warming could take years if not decades or centuries and still would be based on statistics rather than on full knowledge of physics of involved processes because of complication natural events in large scale have...

considering that even most complicated computer models are very rough compared to real word and fact that people can't predict a weather in three days advance using strongest computers on the world makes me Believe this is another BS story with BS scientist who builded an oversimplistic model to proove their thesis...

Weather prediction is based on computer model-simulations while statistical investigation on climate change is based largely on regressing empirical observations. Oranges are usually sour as opposed to apples that are more on the sweet side ;)

Don't want to burst your buble wheater forecasting is aslo laregy based on regresion and statistical models :)

You said oversimplistic...you havent seen the model i guess...have you seen any ecological-economic-environmental models? If you havent, your talk is as good as fresh air :D
Of course i haven't seen that model, i supose you haven't also :), still as a computer sicence student with some interest in that mater. Building models meets many dificulties, even in simple cases. In case of ecosystem with many "variables", unknows and data based mainly on statistics rather than on hard knowledge of physics of involved processes you can't proove anything they only can point were proof have to be looked for.

Get over with it... For every such model i can give you ten 10 other saying something completly oposite...

While you are at it, think again of the BS issue :lol:

[von_Moo142]

mnbnm:

I don't think you understand. The article isn't about politics or treaties. It's an anouncment of a ground breaking paper in a premier peer-reviewed scientific journal.

If you look at who did the work you will see Livermore is involved. Groups there design nuclear weapons for the US government. The US DoE are also involved, and these people run nuclear power stations.

So, I'll repeat myself: This isn't some fringe article in the Swaziland Journal of Whalehugging that you should use political BS to dismiss.

I want to read the full paper when it's published, but it looks pretty indisputable. You can't just make a false model that does what they claim and have it pass peer review. In fact you probably can't just make a false model that does what they claim full stop.

[achilles]

Anybody has a prove that the world is not a disc?

Scientist say whatever you want to hear. ;)

Its a sphere isnt it? p-)

[Herrmannek]

Anybody has a prove that the world is not a disc?

Scientist say whatever you want to hear. ;)

Its a sphere isnt it? p-)
Actualy flateend ball :)

[achilles]

I don't give a **** who they are. First lesson of good scientist is to not believe authoritets. As for methods , If you build a model you do that to veryffy it later, they stired **** right after they got results from runing it vithout any valid verification and called It ULTIMATE PROOF :cantbeli:

You dont give a **** but i do. Its a matter of source-credibility. A 'bunch' is very different from the organizations (including US government agencies) that conducted the study. Your aphoristic 'bunch' was just a demonstration that you didnt understand what the article is all about in the first place.
Specifically, they didnt call it ULTIMATE PROOF. They were amazed by strong correlations in both models and indeed the specific correlation was referred to as 'stunning'. Indeed, the probabilities of this being a spurious effect are extremely low. Suddenly ocean temperature and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions acquired the same time trend and almost identical rate of change? Not a very convenient coincidence Herrmannek ;)



... Wich in case of global warming could take years if not decades or centuries and still would be based on statistics rather than on full knowledge of physics of involved processes because of complication natural events in large scale have..

EDIT: Statistics are not so bad. Dont forget that our knowledge about the cosmological aspect of Physics is based solely on abstract mathematical models. Theoretical physicists have no empirical base at all. But you believe the big bang theory more than anthropogenic GW i suppose...Why do statistics have to be less credible than other scientific methodologies...its the analysis of what we observe and measure. Sounds good to me


Don't want to burst your buble wheater forecasting is aslo laregy based on regresion and statistical models

You could have bursted my bubble if you had understood my point, something which Von_Moo142 pointed out as well. Perhaps i did not express it very clearly. Weather models are based on past predictions in order to forecast i.e. predict. These guys did not predict anything they just examined the correlations of past observations and found a very strong link between what we do and ocean temperature. They didnt say that blocks of ice will bombard your house in 26 years and 9 days from now Herrmannek...they said that we have been warming the planet during the last half century or so. Regression vs Forecasting. Weather vs Climate change. Apples and oranges.



Of course i haven't seen that model, i supose you haven't also :), still as a computer sicence student with some interest in that mater. Building models meets many dificulties, even in simple cases. In case of ecosystem with many "variables", unknows and data based mainly on statistics rather than on hard knowledge of physics of involved processes you can't proove anything they only can point were proof have to be looked for.

No, my question was if you have seen ANY environmental/ecological models...i pressume the answer is again no. And i see nothing wrong with 'data based on statistics', 'many variables' and 'unknowns'. Have you ever come accross a realistic model with very few variables? I havent...

Cant proove? You are getting kind of philosophical and that can be sometimes futile and counter-productive. What is proof? Do you want God to come down to earth and tell you that the planet is warming up? We are talking about solid, mounting evidence here with a very good percentage of accuracy ( i pressume their confidence levels are above 90%). So what kind of proof do you want? Where is the proof of the opposite? ;) Where are the statistical analyses showing that those correlations are random? Show me studies that show absolutely no relationship between anthropogenic emissions and global temperature. Dont bother, cause there arent any of that nature.

[ibstolidude]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.Total BS - and it can be proved; can you proove yourself correct?

What is funny is ocean tempuratures have also been used to proove that therw is little correlation between man and global warming.

Considering that high estimates place the man made levels of carbon emissions accouting for less than 9% of the total levels (among other concerns); questioning the research is expected.

[von_Moo142]

Considering that high estimates place the man made levels of carbon emissions accouting for less than 9% of the total levels (among other concerns); questioning the research is expected.

9% of the total or 9% of the observed increase?


And either way, this is just a meaningless number because it tells us nothing about how a change in carbon dioxide emmisions (however small it might be) will effect the environment.

This of course has been subject to some pretty wild speculation. That's the reason why this announcement looks so useful.



What is funny is ocean tempuratures have also been used to proove that therw is little correlation between man and global warming.

No, untill now studies have mostly been used to suggest and not proove. That applies to both sides of the debate: the nay-sayers suggestions just appealed to a different audiance. This study is fairly unique in that it a) seems credible and b) claims to provide proof of man changeing the climate.

[oscarsierra]

mnbnm:

I don't think you understand. The article isn't about politics or treaties. It's an anouncment of a ground breaking paper in a premier peer-reviewed scientific journal.

If you look at who did the work you will see Livermore is involved. Groups there design nuclear weapons for the US government. The US DoE are also involved, and these people run nuclear power stations.

So, I'll repeat myself: This isn't some fringe article in the Swaziland Journal of Whalehugging that you should use political BS to dismiss.

I want to read the full paper when it's published, but it looks pretty indisputable. You can't just make a false model that does what they claim and have it pass peer review. In fact you probably can't just make a false model that does what they claim full stop.

No, no. I'm afraid I was misunderstood. I am not disputing any of the data. I am only quoting the article to comment on the manner in which the world is choosing to deal with the issue.

Right or wrong, I'm not one to say. But if everyone looks at the numbers, it does seem to show that we're, "trying to close the barn door, and the cows have already left." Only, the data doesn't support the cows having left, but maybe just a few mice (if that makes sense).

In simpler terms, I think, too many people are blowing the data/information out of proportion, while the current solution is just as extreme. Someone once said that necessity is the mother of invention. I believe it. It is not a serious issue today, and we do not have the means or technology to fix it today.

In my opinion, with the global model of science advancing exponentially, we'll have a solution of some sort before the issue comes to a serious threat.

Now, how does all this affect me? Well, I'm still going to drive my SUV. As for my kids, or their kids; by that point, (if I may make light of the situation) we might well be living on Mars. :-)

[von_Moo142]

Then I misunderstood the nature of the article you posted. Sorry :-)

[achilles]

Considering that high estimates place the man made levels of carbon emissions accouting for less than 9% of the total levels (among other concerns); questioning the research is expected.

9% of the total or 9% of the observed increase?


And either way, this is just a meaningless number because it tells us nothing about how a change in carbon dioxide emmisions (however small it might be) will effect the environment.


I believe we all agree that atmospheric dynamics obey chaotic laws and therefore tiny changes in any parameter may cause huge changes, especially in the long-run.From where i stand 9% is a big number.


This of course has been subject to some pretty wild speculation. That's the reason why this announcement looks so useful.



What is funny is ocean tempuratures have also been used to proove that therw is little correlation between man and global warming.

No, untill now studies have mostly been used to suggest and not proove. That applies to both sides of the debate: the nay-sayers suggestions just appealed to a different audiance. This study is fairly unique in that it a) seems credible and b) claims to provide proof of man changeing the climate.

Well said. It is indeed credible, with its own level of confidence of course

Ibstolidude: good to see you back.


Here is an interesting discussion i had with Ibstolidude a while ago:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27158&start=0

[achilles]

Arctic warming at twice global rate (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6615)

Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious consequences for the planet.

These include substantial rises in sea level and an intensification of global warming via a positive feedback mechanism, although there may also be benefits. The four-year scientific assessment was conducted by an international team of 300 researchers for the Arctic Council, which is comprised of the eight nations - including the US - with Arctic territories.

“The projections for the future show a two to three times higher warming rate than for the rest of the world,” says Pål Prestrud, vice-chairman of the steering committee for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report. “That will have consequences for the physical, ecological and human systems.”

“The big melt has begun,” says Jennifer Morgan, climate change director of the campaign group WWF. “Industrialised countries are carrying out an uncontrolled experiment to study the effects of climate change and the Arctic is their first guinea pig. This is unethical and wrong. They must cut emissions of CO2 now.”

Summer melt
The Arctic will lose 50% to 60% of its ice distribution by 2100, according to the average of five climate models run by the scientists. One of the five models predicts that by 2070, the Artic will be so warm it will no longer have any ice in the summer.

Prestrud told New Scientist that the report draws on models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its predictions. It has based the Arctic projections on the IPCC’s “middle scenario”, where global warming gas emissions are double their pre-industrial level. In this scenario, sea level will rise between 10 and 90 centimetres in this century, he says.

The Arctic had been predicted to be hit first by global warming, principally because warming at the northern pole is enhanced by positive feedback.

Snow and ice reflect 80% to 90% of solar radiation back into space. But when these white surfaces disappear, more solar radiation is absorbed by the underlying land or sea as heat. This heat, in turn, melts more snow and ice.

Another reason for the Arctic’s sensitivity is that the air there is extremely dry compared to air at lower latitudes, says Prestrud. This means that less energy is used up in evaporating water, leaving more as heat.

Value judgment
A warmer Arctic may have many consequences. “It’s a value judgment. For the oil industry it will be an advantage if the ice disappears, increasing access to oil and gas reserves,” notes Prestrud. He says that about 25% of the Earth’s remaining reserves are in the Arctic.

“But for the Inuit wanting to live life on the ice, he will of course not like disappearing ice,” he says.

The melting ice and the thawing of tundra could have a big impact on wildlife. Prestrud predicts that when the ice melts, symbolic species such as the polar bear, as well as thousands of others, may become endangered. “Polar bears are walking on thin ice,” agrees Samantha Smith, director of WWF's Arctic programme.

The ACIA report will be released officially on 9 November at a scientific symposium in Reykjavik, Iceland. On 24 November, the science report, an overview, and a policy report – handed over from the scientists to Arctic Council ambassadors in 2003 – will be discussed at a ministerial meeting of the council.

There are gloomy signals all over the place, yet it is remarkable how much people ignore-or choose to ignore- evidence, however problematic this evidence may be.

EDIT: Related to the initial article of this thread, from The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html)


"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

[Herrmannek]

I woke up achiles.. I see you are inconvincible so i'll stop trying. I'll just wait said 50 years and bring that topic back, of course if you will not die because of healthy food diet... Anyway I have TinFoil hat i'm safe from electromagnetic radiation and overheating... BRING IT ON

[Weasel]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.Total BS - and it can be proved; can you proove yourself correct?

I can´t. Scientists can. Are there any scientists (not be listed on a payroll of a oil or energy company) who deny mankind as the cause of global warming!

[achilles]

I woke up achiles.. I see you are inconvincible so i'll stop trying. I'll just wait said 50 years and bring that topic back, of course if you will not die because of healthy food diet... Anyway I have TinFoil hat i'm safe from electromagnetic radiation and overheating... BRING IT ON

Good morning ;) ...its not a matter of convincing anyone mate. Its a matter of knowing what we are talking about, even if someone is eventually wrong. You seem to have scratched the surface ONLY of the literature advocating global warming to be a hoax ;) . Try looking at the other side in a more open mided way-that is if my suggestions mean anything.

I ve been lucky to have the opportunity to study the issue in and out of the academia. Far from being a specialist, i have read enough to form a solid opinion. The argument that we are foking up our planet's climate is way more appealing to me.

If you like, those advocating the hoax-scenario have much more to gain than those who argue in favour of the anthropogenic climate change.

Cutting down GHG emissions is far too costly.

[achilles]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.Total BS - and it can be proved; can you proove yourself correct?

I can´t. Scientists can. Are there any scientists (not be listed on a payroll of a oil or energy company) who deny mankind as the cause of global warming!

There are, but dig this. The vast majority of those who think GB is a fraud come from accross the pond ;) ....oooops this is the country that burdens atmosphere the most with GHG woot .

Those damn coincidences! :lol:

[Weasel]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.Total BS - and it can be proved; can you proove yourself correct?

I can´t. Scientists can. Are there any scientists (not be listed on a payroll of a oil or energy company) who deny mankind as the cause of global warming!

There are, but dig this. The vast majority of those who think GB is a fraud come from accross the pond ;) ....oooops this is the country that burdens atmosphere the most with GHG woot .

Those damn coincidences! :lol:

Damn coincidendes. :bash:

[Herrmannek]

I woke up achiles.. I see you are inconvincible so i'll stop trying. I'll just wait said 50 years and bring that topic back, of course if you will not die because of healthy food diet... Anyway I have TinFoil hat i'm safe from electromagnetic radiation and overheating... BRING IT ON

Good morning ;) ...its not a matter of convincing anyone mate. Its a matter of knowing what we are talking about, even if someone is eventually wrong. You seem to have scratched the surface ONLY of the literature advocating global warming to be a hoax ;) . Try looking at the other side in a more open mided way-that is if my suggestions mean anything.

I ve been lucky to have the opportunity to study the issue in and out of the academia. Far from being a specialist, i have read enough to form a solid opinion. The argument that we are foking up our planet's climate is way more appealing to me.

If you like, those advocating the hoax-scenario have much more to gain than those who argue in favour of the anthropogenic climate change.

Cutting down GHG emissions is far too costly.
Actualy its hard to miss any enviromentals propaganda.. being deaf and blind would not save you from learing it. I'm practical person I don't deny impact exist. What I say its that this impact is greatly overestimated and overcathastropic. Most of the reasearch is flawed because of agenda and moneys standing behind that crap. We can stand much more. Back in the time before oil and coal was created it was all in athmosphere and AFAIK it didn't killed life. Before we will make damage that can kill us or totaly melt ice on poles we will be out of combustible materials in amout that could rise leve of garden gases beyond level allowing it... Also there is as many as good reports or beter showing that what happenes now can be result of natural flow of things... I can bet for 1000 bucks that chance we all will be killed by World War number M :) is greater than that we will get 5% total rise in skin cancer, headstrokes any other **** brought by global warming you can imagine...
Industrial development already saved more lifes than all pinko commie enviromentalist ever will and litle warmer climat will not change that statistics at all... OVER AND OUT

[budanski]

I would be quite surprised if the greenhouse models matched anything since what they are describing (temperature measurements at depth, salinity, etc) are not part of any models that I am aware of.

What is lacking as usual is an explanation of how CO2, a weak greenhouse gas, "forces" increases in water vapor which lead to warming. The models all simply assume this, but there is no way that the ocean temperature measurements confirmed this except in a gross sense (showing warming over the past century).

Needless to say, anyone who believes that mankind could possibly have any kind of effect on the temperature of millions and millions of cubic miles of water is even dumber than someone who believes that man can control the weather. The earth is a living system, it is constantly changing... Nothing they are predicting hasn't happened before (even in their worst case scenarios)... so why again must it be Man's fault?

The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity. End of story.

[username]

We got a house full of experts in this place. What the hell are you doing here, why arent you out proving your theories to the decision makers thus ending the worthless consumption of Unnesessary organisations.

[Herrmannek]

We got a house full of experts in this place. What the hell are you doing here, why arent you out proving your theories to the decision makers thus ending the worthless consumption of Unnesessary organisations.
Problem is world is full of experts in that matter..there is no place for 10 another :)

[username]

I would be quite surprised if the greenhouse models matched anything since what they are describing (temperature measurements at depth, salinity, etc) are not part of any models that I am aware of.

What is lacking as usual is an explanation of how CO2, a weak greenhouse gas, "forces" increases in water vapor which lead to warming. The models all simply assume this, but there is no way that the ocean temperature measurements confirmed this except in a gross sense (showing warming over the past century).

Needless to say, anyone who believes that mankind could possibly have any kind of effect on the temperature of millions and millions of cubic miles of water is even dumber than someone who believes that man can control the weather. The earth is a living system, it is constantly changing... Nothing they are predicting hasn't happened before (even in their worst case scenarios)... so why again must it be Man's fault?

The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity. End of story.

I don't have answer to the green house effect but what I do know is that you claimed that "The models just assumed this" without any evidence and assumed that "The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity" without any evidence.

Wanna start making claims with some evidnce or dismissing claims due to evidence or do you want everyone to assume what you say is the truth without any evidence.

[budanski]

I don't have answer to the green house effect but what I do know is that you claimed that "The models just assumed this" without any evidence and assumed that "The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity" without any evidence.

Wanna start making claims with some evidnce or dismissing claims due to evidence or do you want everyone to assume what you say is the truth without any evidence.

"The Science Behind Predictions of Climate Change" (http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/009-22.pdf)
"The Sun's Role in Global Climate Change" (http://www.scjai.com/technote25.html)
Junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com/)

[Herrmannek]

Junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com/)

Bud that was kick in the groin :)

[martinexsquaddie]

junkscience.com
links with fox news channel(':roll:')
not exactly impartial and highly scientific (':lol:')

[ElHombre]

There wasn´t a doubt that mankind causes global warming, was it?

just among people who would have to make large amounts of money after making changes instead of the obscene amounts they do now. and the apocolyptic bunch here in the US who want the world to end so that they will be proven right about their religion.

[von_Moo142]

I don't have answer to the green house effect but what I do know is that you claimed that "The models just assumed this" without any evidence and assumed that "The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity" without any evidence.

Wanna start making claims with some evidnce or dismissing claims due to evidence or do you want everyone to assume what you say is the truth without any evidence.

"The Science Behind Predictions of Climate Change" (http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/009-22.pdf)
"The Sun's Role in Global Climate Change" (http://www.scjai.com/technote25.html)
Junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com/)

Well I scanned through the first paper and it certainly is not without merit. But it is poorly referenced, which means it carries little or no scientific weight. Having said that, it does get the basics right.


Now, the main argument used by those who deny that mankind can cause the global climate to change seems to be that it cannot be prooved that we will.

Now, I'll ask you all to drop all your policitcal pretenses and your opinions on climate change. If a study was authored that showed that there is a link between climate changes that we have observed and a rise in carbon dioxide emmisions and levels, what would that show?

That's a rhetorical question of course. The study in question would show that manmade climate change occurs, since the increase in carbon dioxide levels are due to man. It really is that simple.

This study claims to do that by modeling factors which may cause warming trends, and seeing if they could have accounted for the trend which we have observed. The authors claim that only the increase in carbon dioxide levels can account for this.


Other arguments are irrelevent here, including political ones of course.


For example, many think that stating the fact that the manmade partial pressure of carbon dioxide is only n% of the total carbon dioxide partial pressure. That means absolutly nothing, since the systems we are dealing with are so complex. If it was a matter of just using simple figures like this there would be no doubt as to the effects of manmade carbon dioxide emmisions.


Then there is the particulates argument, and while this has merit it still means little in the grand scheme of things. It is not a quantitative argument, but is mearly qualitative. The particulates argument when used by those who object to the idea of man influencing the climate is especially weak, as it is contradictory.


We should also note that it's foolish to say that carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas without considering other factors. We know that it is present in much larger amounts in the atmosphere than other greenhouse gasses*.

The sink rate for gasses like methane is likely to be a first order kinetic process**, so it only depends on the partial pressure of methane. For those who are in over their depth, that means that if we have more methane then it should sink back down to the steady state level faster
than if we have less and that the rate that the methane is "sunk" at will be proportional to its concentration. I can tell you now that the carbon dioxide sink process will not be a simple first order kinetic process***.


Regarding steady state levels of carbon dioxide. Because we have seen that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased, then we must be able to say that if we change the rate of emmision then either the steady state changes with it, or it is so slow to recover that it might as well change. So this gives lie to statements such as "man cannot influence anything as large as the climate". We already have by causeing carbon dioxide levels to rise. Why some people expect this to have no effect is beyond me.



The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity. End of story.

Well done ;-) But what we are arguing here is a slight change in the magnitude of how much energy the sun (for example) dumps into systems like the ocean and the atmosphere can be caused by certain factors. This is a important distinction that I see ignored time and time again.

As you know, one-off small scale activities such as volcanism can alter these systems, so it isn't inconceivable at all that the increase in carbon dioxide levels also can. If you look at the amount of particulate matter chucked into the atmosphere during significant volcanic events it will seem very small when expressed in the same way as we express the change in carbon dioxide levels.

So, yes, everyone knows that the sun warms the earth.


Finally a note about theories and models.

If any of you follow pop-science then you will no doubt be aware that there are fewer self evident discoveries being made now, for obvious reasons. That means that science now will frequently not provide the exact solutions that laymen seem to expect of it (not that it really ever did as much as we might expect). So lets look at an example of this: Molecular Orbital (MO) theory***.

This is what we use to look at electron distribution in molecules. It takes a bunch of computing power to do it properly (although you can run simple models on any half decent PC). The electron distibution tells us almost everything about the chemistry and physical properties of a molecule. So, I can input the structure of a molecule to a sim on my computer and use it to predict things like the boiling point, colour, nuclear magnetic resonance spectra, Van der Waals surface, etc.

These models are used at a higher level to work out the interactions between molecules in more complex systems (a model of drug-receptor interaction in solution, for example, will give us information on how to design a better drug).

Yet MO theory, which has revolutionised chemistry, has never been prooved (if you've read your pop science you might understand why :-) ). We use it because it was shown to solve issues we had with past discoverys (e.g. ferrocene, IIRC), becuase it worked better even for systems that we thought we understood, and because it still works well now.

So next time you are perscribed a modern drug, you should be aware that the computer models and theorys that you may malign had a hand in designing the very way that it interacts with your body.


And finaly finally a note about subjectivism and faith.

I see these applied all the time from both sides of the global warming debate. Increasingly though, the faith based comments are coming from those who write global warming off. The world has changed since 1987, so there are more people than bearded ecologists going on about the avalanche effect researching the area. The fact that NASA, LLNL and the Scripps institute are involved should be a warning to those who think they can dismiss global warming as a cranky eco-political stunt.


* If we avoid talking about water, which as anyone who's ever looked at analytical IR specta will tell you, must be a pretty good greenhouse gas. But it isn't present in the right parts of the atmosphere, and it's sinks and sources are much better understood. The "water is the worse greenhouse gas" argument is only ever used by trolls, in my experience.

** UV induced photochemistry almost always is, IIRC from when I actually cared about radical initiated reactions in organic synthesis.

*** If you don't understand this then, respectfully, you should defer to the experts. Go to the library and start reading backwards through Science and Nature until you come to a better understanding of things. See, for example, the thread about the USMC Lt. in general dicussion for an example of people who don't know what they are talking about trying to sound like they do****.

[Drako]

Herrmannek, you say that Earth will regulate itself. You're right - Earth will wipe out those who degradate it (humans) and after couple of thousands of years it'll come back to it's basic state. That's how it will work.

You say that we should wait 50 years to see if simulations were right. Don't you think it'd be wiser to not to check if they are right? It's always better and easier to prevent than to heal. Lowering pollution will do good even if the global warming is a natural process. Your attitude is similar to the sapper who had found a bomb and in order to check if it was armed has waited next to it to see if it would blow up :cantbeli:

[Herrmannek]

Herrmannek, you say that Earth will regulate itself. You're right - Earth will wipe out those who degradate it (humans) and after couple of thousands of years it'll come back to it's basic state. That's how it will work.

You say that we should wait 50 years to see if simulations were right. Don't you think it'd be wiser to not to check if they are right? It's always better and easier to prevent than to heal. Lowering pollution will do good even if the global warming is a natural process. Your attitude is similar to the sapper who had found a bomb and in order to check if it was armed has waited next to it to see if it would blow up :cantbeli:

If you want eat sucky food, wear paper clothes and live in under heated flat okay, but don't dare forcing it on me, esspecialy by slowing down development of the society and industry because of stupid and costly laws... What I afraid is that we will use all oil/coal before we will develop doable costeffective alternatives. IMHO this is threat that with much greater probability can kill us all much faster than any damage to enviroment we can do even if we would do it on purpose...

[RGRBOX]

Finnally we have the final word on it.... :cantbeli:

[Drako]

We're talking about lowering a pollution rate in USA, not about some greenpeace crap. Using filters by factories alone would help alot but well, they aren't cheap. And why to spend money on something what can kill millions in next 50 years?


esspecialy by slowing down development of the society and industry

What will be a use of all our development if there is noone who would make use of it? What will be the use of all those factories if they are flooded? People are short-sighted. That problem won't solve itself. At least not in the way positive for us. If it won't happen during our lives, we'll leave a great legacy to our children and grandchildren.

[Moledet]

Who cares? This koyoto (sp?) thing will get us tons of money.

[achilles]

Actualy its hard to miss any enviromentals propaganda.. being deaf and blind would not save you from learing it. I'm practical person I don't deny impact exist. What I say its that this impact is greatly overestimated and overcathastropic. Most of the reasearch is flawed because of agenda and moneys standing behind that crap.

Ok in a nutshell cause i got no time. Sorry to tell you this Herrmannek but you have not seized posting nonsense. Think of the money that are at stake from ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Some people just dont profit from it and apparently the dont give a flyin fok about what will happen to the climate. See what i mean?

We can stand much more. Back in the time before oil and coal was created it was all in athmosphere and AFAIK it didn't killed life. Before we will make damage that can kill us or totaly melt ice on poles we will be out of combustible materials in amout that could rise leve of garden gases beyond level allowing it...

I can give you a very nice list of references according to which we will not run out of fosil fuels so easily Even if we run out in 50-60 years down the line it might be too late. You sound pretty sure about the exhaustion of currently used fuels and their effective replacement with 'green' energies. ****...you have all the ansers :lol:

Also there is as many as good reports or beter showing that what happenes now can be result of natural flow of things...

I implore you to hit me with those "as many as good or even better studies'. Have you got anything that refutes this latest study that i posted? Oh i forgot...you know practically nothing about this study. Its just another piece of crap coming from some wacko 'greens'. :D

I can bet for 1000 bucks that chance we all will be killed by World War number M :) is greater than that we will get 5% total rise in skin cancer, headstrokes any other **** brought by global warming you can imagine...
Industrial development already saved more lifes than all pinko commie enviromentalist ever will and litle warmer climat will not change that statistics at all... OVER AND OUT

Ok ok...i know... you ve been drinking :hug: :lol:

[achilles]

edit

[achilles]

I don't have answer to the green house effect but what I do know is that you claimed that "The models just assumed this" without any evidence and assumed that "The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity" without any evidence.

Wanna start making claims with some evidnce or dismissing claims due to evidence or do you want everyone to assume what you say is the truth without any evidence.

"The Science Behind Predictions of Climate Change" (http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/009-22.pdf)

Ok the science is problematic. As is the case with practically every scientific field yet we follow other practices that have been based on flawed methodologies. Whats new?

"The Sun's Role in Global Climate Change" (http://www.scjai.com/technote25.html)

Yep...the sun plays the most crucial role in our climate. And of course global warming is by no means solely anthropogenic but rather takes place through synergies, i.e. earth's orbit, sun, CO2 emissions and concentrations.
Junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com/)

The URL of this latest 'source' Budanski is just self-explanatory. Really nothing there apart from those cute counting electronic devices :lol:




The temperature of the oceans is affected by the sun and the earth's plate tectonic activity. End of story.

Where have you been all that time? Why didnt you say so bud? :lol:

Cmon, following the 'end of story' mentality has never helped anyone now has it? ;)

Any serious refutations of this latest study on the human impact on oceans' temperatures? What you posted is just outdated stuff Budanski.

[Jobu]

All current computer models are insufficient.

Just because some activists say global warming is caused by humans doesn't make it true.

[ibstolidude]

This study is fairly unique in that it a) seems credible and b) claims to provide proof of man changeing the climate.
story is the right word. this is nothing more than a story; this IS not the study itself. This is one man's interpretation. If you think this isn't the case look to the original IPCC studies and look at how they were hijacked and used to draw conclusions the original researches never reached nor intended.

[ibstolidude]

There were always ups and downs of global temerature. But never in the history of earth there was such a quick increase of temperature in such a short time. Some scientist say it´s already too late for action.Total BS - and it can be proved; can you proove yourself correct?

I can´t. Scientists can. Are there any scientists (not be listed on a payroll of a oil or energy company) who deny mankind as the cause of global warming!
How about several of the original '95 IPCC researchers ( if you unsure of how 1995 IPCC data applies please do not waste anyones time by posting) - oops, I guess if you are going to argue and make snide comments you should back them up with truth.

Achilles and I may have disagreements on the issue, however we both offer information that support our reasons why - I have yet to see him make such ludicrous and finite statements.

[TheKiwi]

I know, you were all waiting for me to show up. (Especially you achilles :D )

The computer models that have been used to predict the climate change are flawed in a number of ways. They are so flawed that they can't even show how we have our current climate. When you can start with that as a basis point, it is very difficult to take projects from them seriously.

Many of the IPCC's models are similarly flawed. Unfortunately, the Economists analysis of it is premium content, which means I can't access it, so this is from memory.

It assumed that nations such as North Korea and Ethiopia would overtake the United States in standards of living (by around 300%) by 2100. It assumed that during all that time, there would be no scientific progress that might eliminate any pollution production. There were plenty more of a similar vein.

It then took the worst estimates of all of these assumptions to produce its results.


There is plenty of crap floating about on this. One of the most quoted pieces I see refers to the Island's of Tuvalu and how they are disappearing below the waves. See my post in this item.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38335

Stuff like this keeps getting repeated. Repeating something often enough (as certain ministers of propaganda knew) can make it be though of as fact.

I'll work my way through the rest of this stuff and keep you all posted.

Keep it civil guys. It's more enjoyable that way. :hug:

[von_Moo142]

This study is fairly unique in that it a) seems credible and b) claims to provide proof of man changeing the climate.

story is the right word. this is nothing more than a story; this IS not the study itself. This is one man's interpretation. If you think this isn't the case look to the original IPCC studies and look at how they were hijacked and used to draw conclusions the original researches never reached nor intended.

I realise that this is not the study. I agree that it's always best to wait for the full paper before drawing conclusions, but you don't make anouncements like that if you don't have anything to back it up.

We can ignore interpretation. It's an article in the Independant (like many of our newspapers, the name is a wonderful example of irony) , so there's going to be some slant. However, they can't just make claims of having found some models that actually work if they haven't. So regardles of the spin and little bits of alarmist crap added on, the core findings must have a basis in fact.

[von_Moo142]

Stuff like this keeps getting repeated. Repeating something often enough (as certain ministers of propaganda knew) can make it be though of as fact.

Coyahoga is a classic example of this.

[TheKiwi]

Stuff like this keeps getting repeated. Repeating something often enough (as certain ministers of propaganda knew) can make it be though of as fact.

Coyahoga is a classic example of this.

I'm not familiar with this incident. Would you mind elaborating?

[von_Moo142]

It would help if I got the spelling right. It should be Cuyahoga. Sorry!


The Cuyahoga river in Ohio was the scene of several fires. One, in 1969, became more famous than the rest, presumably due to media attention (Time magazine, amoung others). The fire was fueled by floating debris and accelerated by oil*.

But as people started saying that the river caught fire then they started straying from the truth. It became not a simple fire on the river, but the river itself actually burning. People state that the river was so polluted it actually caught fire. This spin persists even now.


What amazes me is that there was no need for the hype (and that people simply accept that a river can catch fire). Having enough crap floating around on a river for to make a fire hazard is bad enough in itself. And like many US waterways at the time, there was less obvious pollution that really was in the river.


There's even an REM song titled Cuyahoga that mentions the fire (although it's actually quite good, IMO).


Now I've written this out it seems like me nit-picking.


* These types of fires happened fairly frequently, espacially in harbors.

[ZaakM433]

im just going to say 1 thing and not even read all these posts.

What evidence have they provided that this is not part of a naturally occuring cycle of the earth? We dont know how these things work yet, we havent been recording temperatures accurately in the past 2000+ years to tell.

[RGRBOX]

The worls has been warming up since the begining, I know some say that we are causing it to heat up faster, but the proof isn't that well justified, in my veiw. One thing is true, we are killing off the world at a faster rate since the extermination of the dinosaurs... Something has to be done, we need more safer and cleaner resorces that will be chaeper and safer..but this is the magic word, chaeper, they, as in the few who rule this world want more and more money, so all of the scientist in the world could have 100% proof and the big business would still rule the day..we are only around to pay our bills so someone else can get richer....Thanks, and good night....

[TheKiwi]

My thanks von_moo. There are a great many such green urban legends floating about.

Achilles, I have to say the the biggest give-away that the report you're quoting at the begining is political based science is that they did the press release prior to subbitting their paper for peer review.

This is a very common habit of those in the global warming industry, and it can take a very long time for this kind of thing to be de-bunked fully. (Fore example, the 'hockey-stick, which has only recently been shown to be false. This took over 8 years, during which time it too has turned into another urban legend).

On a related note, I have friends whose politics range from left wing liberals to right wing libertarians, yet none of them beleive in human caused global warming. I suspect that this may have something to do with our background in studying history. From a historical perspective, what we are experiencing now is very commonplace. There are at least two times in the recorded past with higher worldwide temperatures than now.

[mattnwnc03]

In the words of George Carlin:
"We've been around for what 10000 years? We've been doing heavy industry for 200 years. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. You really think we can do that much damage?"

They have compared the temperature for the last 40 years and they think they have evidence?
Still, it's not a good reason for that jackass not to sign the kyoto treaty.
Clean air is always a good thing. yep were not killing the earth, we are like a flea on a dogs butt. the earth can shake this off but we are going to pay the price for it

[achilles]

I know, you were all waiting for me to show up. (Especially you achilles :D )


I was wondering what took you so long! :D

Due to time restrictions i will answer to you-and others- through this:


Applying the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle means that it is not acceptable just to say "we can't be sure that serious damage will happen, so we'll do nothing to prevent it". Precaution is not just relevant to environmental damage - for example, chemicals which may affect wildlife may also affect human health.

At the same time, precautionary action must be based on objective assessments of the costs and benefits of action. The principle does not mean that we only permit activities if we are sure that serious harm will not arise, or there is proof that the benefits outweigh all possible risks. That would severely hinder progress towards improvements in the quality of life.


The Rio Declarationdefines the precautionary principle as 'where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. Precautionary action requires assessment of the costs and benefits of action, and transparency in decision-making.

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/guiding.htm#7

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/principle.htm

As i have said a number of times already there is so much uncertainty involved with the issue of global warming and especially its consequences that we cannot afford NOT doing our own merit in full...Kyoto is a start even if it is extremely costly for certain countries.

As for your comments, Kiwi, on the political character of the study i posted, all i have to say is that its not more politically/economically motivated than those who argue in favour of GB being a fraud ;) .

So until credible SCIENTIFIC refutation comes out....science says we are warming up our oceans in a very statistically significant kind of way p-)

We could talk about it again as soo as i have a copy of the study itself.

[RGRBOX]

I know, you were all waiting for me to show up. (Especially you achilles :D )


I was wondering what took you so long! :D

Due to time restrictions i will answer to you-and others- through this:


Applying the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle means that it is not acceptable just to say "we can't be sure that serious damage will happen, so we'll do nothing to prevent it". Precaution is not just relevant to environmental damage - for example, chemicals which may affect wildlife may also affect human health.

At the same time, precautionary action must be based on objective assessments of the costs and benefits of action. The principle does not mean that we only permit activities if we are sure that serious harm will not arise, or there is proof that the benefits outweigh all possible risks. That would severely hinder progress towards improvements in the quality of life.


The Rio Declarationdefines the precautionary principle as 'where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. Precautionary action requires assessment of the costs and benefits of action, and transparency in decision-making.

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/guiding.htm#7

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/principle.htm

As i have said a number of times already there is so much uncertainty involved with the issue of global warming and especially its consequences that we cannot afford NOT doing our own merit in full...Kyoto is a start even if it is extremely costly for certain countries.

As for your comments, Kiwi, on the political character of the study i posted, all i have to say is that its not more politically/economically motivated than those who argue in favour of GB being a fraud ;) .

So until credible SCIENTIFIC refutation comes out....science says we are warming up our oceans in a very statistically significant kind of way p-)

We could talk about it again as soo as i have a copy of the study itself.

Now this brings new light to the argument...

[TheKiwi]

Applying the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle means that it is not acceptable just to say "we can't be sure that serious damage will happen, so we'll do nothing to prevent it". Precaution is not just relevant to environmental damage - for example, chemicals which may affect wildlife may also affect human health.

At the same time, precautionary action must be based on objective assessments of the costs and benefits of action. The principle does not mean that we only permit activities if we are sure that serious harm will not arise, or there is proof that the benefits outweigh all possible risks. That would severely hinder progress towards improvements in the quality of life.


The Rio Declarationdefines the precautionary principle as 'where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. Precautionary action requires assessment of the costs and benefits of action, and transparency in decision-making.

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/guiding.htm#7

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what_is_sd/principle.htm

As i have said a number of times already there is so much uncertainty involved with the issue of global warming and especially its consequences that we cannot afford NOT doing our own merit in full...Kyoto is a start even if it is extremely costly for certain countries.
copy of the study itself.

The precautionary principle is based around a false premise: That it is possible to prove a negative. It is simply being used as an excuse for everything and anything these days.

If humanity had applied the precautionary principle from the beginning of time, we'd still be debating whether this 'fire' stuff is OK to use.

[RGRBOX]

Another road bump to the argument... Any one have something they want to add to this argument...I feel that everyone, as in science and politicans, have a lot of evidence to back up there probabilities, but no proof...damn it's a little warm today...

[achilles]

The precautionary principle is based around a false premise: That it is possible to prove a negative. It is simply being used as an excuse for everything and anything these days.

If humanity had applied the precautionary principle from the beginning of time, we'd still be debating whether this 'fire' stuff is OK to use.

The precautionary principle is based on the very simple idea of dealing with a problem that POTENTIALLY can proove to be catastrophic instead of waiting to see what will happen whinning about those wacko 'greens'. Especially when the problem is on a global scale.

If any moderately pessimistic scenario prooves to be true we all go down. In any case its good to reduce CO2 emissions and replace fossil fuel burning with cleaner renewable energies, global warming or not...solid scientific evidence or not. ;) Simple as that...

[achilles]

Another road bump to the argument... Any one have something they want to add to this argument...I feel that everyone, as in science and politicans, have a lot of evidence to back up there probabilities, but no proof...damn it's a little warm today...


Where would the discussion be without you? :petting:



:lol: :lol: :lol:

[RGRBOX]

Another road bump to the argument... Any one have something they want to add to this argument...I feel that everyone, as in science and politicans, have a lot of evidence to back up there probabilities, but no proof...damn it's a little warm today...


Where would the discussion be without you? :petting:



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for the hug, but I would hope that everyone would be doing a lot better off...Just waiting for this thread to end. But interesting read... :D

[afrographX]

even if we can't proof the thing with the warming, it's a fact that our modern civilisation conrtibutes to the destruction of the ozon layer. and it's a fact that the resources on which our civilisation is based won't last forever.

so it would be only logical to attempt to solve these problems before it's too late and our civilisation collapses.

[BlackFlag]

i dont care either way we'll al be long dead before we see any negative effects of global warming...

[Jani.R]

i dont care either way we'll al be long dead before we see any negative effects of global warming...


Nice way of thinking, its your kids suffering in the future..

[achilles]

Another road bump to the argument... Any one have something they want to add to this argument...I feel that everyone, as in science and politicans, have a lot of evidence to back up there probabilities, but no proof...damn it's a little warm today...


Where would the discussion be without you? :petting:



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for the hug, but I would hope that everyone would be doing a lot better off...Just waiting for this thread to end. But interesting read... :D

Got any proof that there is absolutely no problemo? Do you always take all decisions in your life based on guaranteed evidence?

Waiting for this thread to end? :lol: You are not holding your breath are you? Well...when i dont like a thread to the point i want it dead,for my own reasons, i just ignore it and dont post in it ;)

Here is another tender stroke for ya :petting:

p-)

[TheKiwi]

The precautionary principle is based around a false premise: That it is possible to prove a negative. It is simply being used as an excuse for everything and anything these days.

If humanity had applied the precautionary principle from the beginning of time, we'd still be debating whether this 'fire' stuff is OK to use.

The precautionary principle is based on the very simple idea of dealing with a problem that POTENTIALLY can proove to be catastrophic instead of waiting to see what will happen whinning about those wacko 'greens'. Especially when the problem is on a global scale.

If any moderately pessimistic scenario prooves to be true we all go down.

The precautionary principle is simply being used by the greens wordwide to try to stop anything and everything they disagree with. And it's very simple in it's application because as previously stated, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Got a scientific study that shows that the sun is outputting at a higher level than at anytime in the last 1000 years. Too bad. You can't prove that it isn't human emissions, so apply the precuationary principle. Got scientific studies showing that GM foods are safe. Too bad, you can't prove 100% that they won't do some harm.

You can't prove a negative. Proof of absense of harm is impossible, and it's being used by the greens to push their agenda.


In any case its good to reduce CO2 emissions and replace fossil fuel burning with cleaner renewable energies, global warming or not...solid scientific evidence or not. ;) Simple as that...

Agree with you there. I'm sick and tired of eating diesel exhaust. Get your 4WD tuned! How hard is it? :bash:

[achilles]

The precautionary principle is simply being used by the greens wordwide to try to stop anything and everything they disagree with. And it's very simple in it's application because as previously stated, it's impossible to prove a negative.

I see your point. The thing is that i have used the precautionary principle within the global warming context. I am not saying its applicable anywhere/anytime. Despite its flawed element that you very well pointed out, it can have enormous practical applicability and beneficiary results. Depends on which case we are talking about. The issue of anthropogenic GB can have a major impact on current and future generations and we cannot afford to risk.


Got a scientific study that shows that the sun is outputting at a higher level than at anytime in the last 1000 years. Too bad. You can't prove that it isn't human emissions, so apply the precuationary principle. Got scientific studies showing that GM foods are safe. Too bad, you can't prove 100% that they won't do some harm.

You can't prove a negative. Proof of absense of harm is impossible, and it's being used by the greens to push their agenda.

Why are you so inflexible about this? Scientifically refuting studies that advocate man-induced GB is one form of prooving the absence of harm. One says there is harm the somebody prooves him wrong...i.e. corroborates the idea of 'no-harm', in an indirect fashion if you like.

In any case its good to reduce CO2 emissions and replace fossil fuel burning with cleaner renewable energies, global warming or not...solid scientific evidence or not. ;) Simple as that...

Agree with you there. I'm sick and tired of eating diesel exhaust. Get your 4WD tuned! How hard is it? :bash:

Its an impossible task in Greece :bash: