board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Global warming/not warming

Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 45 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
halplm
Post subject: Global warming/not warming
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 7:07 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I thought we had a thread on this but couldn't find it.

here's the question I have. If it is proven that carbon dioxide emmissions do not contribute to global warming, how long will it take for the proponents of such an idea to let it go?
Quote:
Climate facts to warm to

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

<snip>
The full article is here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 8:06 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
#1 From Google
Quote:
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia's Leading Free Market Think Tank
#2http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ins ... ic_Affairs
Quote:
Institute of Public Affairs
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation. Join our team of citizen journalists researching and exposing tobacco industry secrets.
The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.
#3The IPA was founded in 1943 by Charles Kemp, and has had close links to the Liberal Party since its inception.[citation needed] It is funded by its membership and also by corporate interest groups (including Gunns Limited, Monsanto and tobacco, mining and oil companies).[citation needed]

Um why not ask why the only science that the Right questions is the science that threatens current economic interests? If they said this is happening but to deal with it will have serious economic consequences then we can deal with the problem honestly but instead they pretend it isn't happening using obfuscation, tame spokesmen, partial interpretation and misrepresentation.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 8:16 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Sorry, Tosh, I'm missing something, because I don't know what that has to do with the article.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 8:29 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Because the woman who was being interviewed in that article is a member of a political group that among other things is dedicated to disproving the consequences of environmental change. A group that is funded by mining interests. Like they have an axe to grind.
Doesn't that ring any warning bells with you as to how trustworthy their science is?

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 8:57 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Why aren't you just as skeptical of the science of the people that say Global warming is all due to carbon dioxide emmissions?

You think they aren't politically motivated as well?

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 9:11 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
I mean I wouldn't trust a Japanese government assessment of the impact of whaling, nor a logging company on the viability of the rainforests, nor a tobacco company on the health risks of smoking nor the nuclear industry on the risks of radiation nor the oil industry on alternative energy sources etc etc.
If someone is going to credibly challenge the general consensus among climatologists about world climate change I won't go to a political think tank in the pay of big commercial interests.
Are you saying that if a varied and world-wide group of scientists make some observations, just because political groups take issue with them then that automatically makes their observations a political stance?

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 9:12 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Generally speaking, scientists are motivated by their questions. And, when it comes to climate (and just about anything else in science), there are more questions than answers. Furthermore, reporting findings is what scientists do. Reporting findings to the world at large, even if the picture is not complete (it never is) is what scientists do when they feel that they have a moral obligation to do so.

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88520025
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/clima ... /index.jsp

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 10:55 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
The problem is, you say you distrust the science because it's funded by commercial interests.

All the science is funded by someone! Science is science, where the funding comes from shouldn't be an issue. In fact, it's only ever an issue to anyone when they don't want to hear the results.

The only time you should question a scientists results based on their funding, is if their conclusions contradict their data or experiments.

In this case, if we are getting new data from a new source, which does not fit the models that are used by the environmentalists fear tactics, then those models should not be used. That is science.

My original question gets to the fact that I don't believe that change will happen quickly, and people will refuse to believe new science if it doesn't match their belief that man causes global warming.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 11:04 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
You can believe the oil companies if you like hal. As you said, 'it's only ever an issue to anyone when they don't want to hear the results. ' I think that describes the big company attitude to global warming and explains why these news items come out of right-wing cover organisations.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 11:19 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I don't believe the oil companies, but I don't believe the environmentalists either.

I try to look at the facts myself and draw my own conclusions.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 11:24 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
River gave you some useful sites that aren't filtered by people with an agenda.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 22 Mar , 2008 11:43 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
I don't beleive that for a second, but believe it or not, I've already read a lot of that.

The facts are simple, the planet's temperature changes. It's been going up. It's gone up before. It's gone down before.

There are plenty of good reasons to reduce emissions... but saying the planet will die if we don't is not one of them, IMHO.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 12:16 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
I'm sure there may be environmental activists who will claim that the Earth will die as you put it. So what? We are not required to believe a polemicist.
I don't see the scientific community saying that. What they seem to agree on is that global warming, although necessarily a complex subject, has accelerated since the Industrial Revolution, with many different markers, tree rings, glaciers etc etc. They also warn that judging by the geological record climate change can happen very suddenly (in geological time); the so-called tipping point. Given that the Earth is our only home and we don't have the luxury of moving down the road, it behoves us to be a little cautious and to find out a lot more about the matter. This is what is currently happening.
Unfortunately the Right-Wing in the US seems to have grabbed on to this and will use every opportunity to disparage or misrepresent or cherry pick research to show that it isn't happening. The right wing think tank that featured in the article you quoted is just one example of this. Quite frankly I am not prepared to believe them because it is economic concerns which are determining their position.
I am surprised you cannot see this.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 12:37 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
The current upward trend in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 surpasses what has been seen before. We're beginning to witness those consequences. The geologic record also bears some information regarding what could happen, based on previous changes. It's simple math to a certain extent - we've been burning carbon reserves that were in the ground for millions of years, the by-product of this burning is CO2, and that CO2 doesn't just disappear. That would violate that little rule about the conservation of mass. And higher CO2 = higher temperatures on the Earth's surface as CO2 absorbs in the IR range somewhere near Earth's emission peak (at least, that's my understanding of how it's working). Now, what exactly happens as this process goes on, and the rate itself, well, that's what the supercomputers up at NCAR and the NOAA facility in Boulder are churning on. Now, we will not sterilize the planet or anything like that, but we could make this place much less hospitable towards us.


But there are none so blind as those that will not see.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
The OG Borry
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 1:10 am
The best things in life are not things
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue 26 Jul , 2005 10:44 pm
Location: here....<_< yeah here thats Ceres, CA for you stalkers
 
Come on man, you live in CA. I don't see how you can have been to places in the valley and LA without seeing the effects of too much crap being in the air from humans :P Those sources sound pretty biased to me too. I figure, so what if the world isn't going to end because of people mucking it up, probably more than likely one way or the other, if it takes telling people that to get them to help then so be it.
Borry

_________________

Borry: equality works both ways cheater!
Don: so does not

So I take pictures now, check em out if you'd like. Here you go.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 5:02 am
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
yes, I said there are good reasons for reducing emissions... mostly because I don't want to breathe them.

But, Tosh, you blame "the right" for cherry-picking research, but "the left" does the exact same thing. The only reason anyone has ever heard of Global warming is that it was jumped on by "the left" based on bogus research 50 years ago.

River, my point is, that simplified "more co2=higher temp" idea may not be true. If the models scientists used were incorrect in predicting climate change, then the theories on what drives it, are likely also incorrect.

But, anyway, I get a kick out of people saying the right uses fear tactics with terrorism, but the left is perfectly justified using fear tactics to get people to fear driving thier cars...

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Crucifer
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 2:34 pm
A song outlasts a dynasty.
Offline
 
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue 29 May , 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Wouldn't you like to know...
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
The problem is, you say you distrust the science because it's funded by commercial interests.
So it is obviously going to be biased. People funded by oil companies are hardly going to turn to their funders and say "Listen, you gotta stop". It doesn't work like that.

The only thing that is known for sure about global warming is that there are potentially so many factors involved that it is impossible to say conclusively if it is happening and why. Is it part of the earths natural cycle? Have we caused it? Is the earth trying to get rid of humans by heating up? Is it the herald to further evolution?

Nobody actually knows. People just believe what they believe to be the best argument. Like in religion.

_________________

Sleep is a death; Oh, make me try by sleeping what it is to die.


Top
Profile Quote
oldtoby
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 7:43 pm
Cuddly Studmuffin
Offline
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 10:41 pm
 
Quote:
No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.
There may have been cooling sure...but you can't take such a narrow range of years when you are talking about something that has cycles that run in thousands of years.

Hal does have a point tho, both sides in this are so dug in that they will do whatever they can to emphasize data that suports their point and minimalize or suppress data that contradicts.


Top
Profile Quote
Crucifer
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Mar , 2008 11:27 pm
A song outlasts a dynasty.
Offline
 
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue 29 May , 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Wouldn't you like to know...
Contact: Website
 
Well yes. Like I said, they're going to support the view of their funders. It's not that difficult to fiddle results slightly, and influence tests subtly. They're not going to contradict the person who's providing them with a living!

_________________

Sleep is a death; Oh, make me try by sleeping what it is to die.


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Mar , 2008 1:42 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Crucifer wrote:
Well yes. Like I said, they're going to support the view of their funders. It's not that difficult to fiddle results slightly, and influence tests subtly. They're not going to contradict the person who's providing them with a living!
Um, sure we are...

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 45 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Jump to: