pmaust

Yes I have looked it over. But it isn't reasonable to use the IPCC data or conclusions proposed in the IPCC reports as proof of itself. It needs to be contrasted with other out side sources. And clearly the IPCC has been wrong before. Meaning what? Contrast of two views. RealClimate is a strong advocate for a particluar point of view and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have to take it for what it is. There are other points of view and I like hearing both sides of a debate.

:lol::phones: Okay, we'll change the name from AGW to AGCC. Regarless of what we call it, it is still like the wind. Honestly, I do not mean to belittle environmental concerns at all. I am just a little less worried than you are. I believe that greed and technology will be a stronger motivation towards conservation than caps or carbon taxes. I hear people on both sides of the political spectrum calling for cleaner energy and energy independence. Hydro fuel cars and even emission free super sonic air travel is in the works. The iPOD certainly has a smaller carbon foot print than a CD player with dozens of CDs times a million people for example. Having reviewed the GRIP data along with other supporting data from around the globe, I am convinced that there was a Medieval Climate Warm Period and that it was warmer than now on average by at least a degree or two. I am also convinced that there was a mini ice age in the 1800's and that we started collecting termperature data right at the end of it so of course we would expect the temperatures to rise. The Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked and so on. What I am essentially saying is that there is still a debate that is reaonable and ongoing. And I am optimistic that technology will assist us in better harmonizing ourselves with the environment by mitigating our impact. And I know you like this place so yes, I did look here ==> RealClimate Here is an interesting article.

[/img]

Well, I've been away reading and observing. Here is what global warming looks like in the sunny Southern California high desert. %5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A//img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/pmaust/IMG_0018.jpg[/img] Snow in Bagdad, China, frigid cold in the mid-west of the US. The evidence is not very convincing. :hihi: Brrrr.....

Interesting discussion about feedbacks and forcings. Thanks. It also appears that the cloud feedback issue is undergoing further study as well. See discussion here ==> Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Positive Feedback: Have We Been Fooling Ourselves? by Roy Spencer And here===> http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/sun.pdf

Okay guys, sorry for the long delays in my replies lots of stuff going on and to add insult to injury, I am having to type one handed since I have a cast on the other hand. Why is so much of the focus on Co2 when water vapor is a much more potent GH gas and there are thousands of times more of it put into the atmosphere every day? According to one source I found, there is over 20,000 times more. Here for example ===> Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat Here are two additional links that I found to be interesting. One is a policy discussion. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mckaylecturelawsononclimatecatastrophism.pdf

Hey guys, sorry to have started this thread and then dissappeared. Actually, I haven't abandoned the conversation, I've just been side tracked with other more pressing matteres. I have every intention of reading everything that has been written here. I just wanted to post this US Senate Report released December 20, 2007 which claims Here is the link ===> .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. 400 scientists is a pretty significant number. I know this is a politically hot topic right now but care little for politics. Infy, I did find some time to look over the IPCC links you provided and will discuss later. Paul

Dr. Glassman responded on this blog. I will quote him here but you can also view them at the rocket science blog. I very much look forward to continuing this discussion. This is how I learn. I also found a fascinating paper written by: Robert H. Essenhigh E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion; Department of Mechanical Engineering 201 West 19th. Avenue; The Ohio State University; Columbus, OH: 43210 Ph: 614-292-0403; Fax: 614-292-3163 More about him here ==> Mechanical Engineering Faculty - Robert Essenhigh Does Co2 really drive global warming? ==> Viewpoint: Does CO2 really drive global warming? I have a copy of his revised manuscript February 2006 entitled In this paper Dr. Essenhigh reaches this conclusion: I have the complete paper in pdf form. As far as I know, it is not up on the web but if anyone is interested, I can email it to you. I look forward to your reasoned responses to this very important topic. Paul

Infy, thanks for repling and the information. I'll look it over.

Thanks for the replies all. I can see how Dr. Glassman may have stirred way too much controversey with his broad brush criticisms of Climatologists which was a distraction from the technical points he was trying to make. So here is another perspective which seems more to the point without the name calling and such. Infy, I did look at the IPCC data that you provided in the link. I guess where I am having a problem is with Co2 being the main culprit driving warming. I also looked at the link which suggest that the ocean sink may be saturated. Not having access to the entire article makes it difficult to read much out of it. I immediately thought of several questions regarding that. For example, we know from the paleo records that there have been times when the atmospheric Co2 concentrations were many times higher than now, yet the temperatures in some cases were nearly the same as now. Certainly under those conditions the oceans would have been more acidic than now, and I would expect that there might have been a saturation in the thermohaline circulation as well. Maybe the full article addressed these issues but I just can't tell from the brief write up. A few years ago a gentleman by the name of Robert Essenhigh wrote this. Viewpoint: Does CO2 really drive global warming? Thanks Paul

Okay, I'll play the devils advoacte here a little. In other writings he does talk about human produced Co2. My initial reaction to his first paragraph was that he is just explaining Co2 processing in general regardless of the source. In other writings on the same site, he points out that Co2 is Co2 and is exactly the same regarless of the source. And if you look at B under Carbon Dioxide Stream he argues as follows: One thing that has me a little baffled is that if Co2 follows higher temperatures rather than creates them, would it not make sense that if temperatures are naturally rising that an increase in atmospheric Co2 would naturally follow as well? There seems to be some debate over what causes what to happen here. Does Co2 cause global warming or does global warming cause an increased amount of Co2 to be released from the ocean? He claims to NOT be a global warming denialist. In fact, he states that global warming is happening. What he agrues against is the cause. As I understand it, he insist that Co2 is not the cause of global warming but increased atmospheric Co2 is the result because regardless of ongoing souces of Co2 such as humans, volcanos, forest fires, et cetera, higher global temps will eventually warm the sea enough that it will release more Co2 into the atmosphere which happens naturally anyway. He goes on to argue that the evidence does not support a run-away green house affect. Instead, he argues that as the temperatures rise, atmospheric water vapor will increase which is a stronger greenhouse gas but as the cloud cover increases more solar ratiation will be reflected back out into space thereby causing a cooling effect. So if I understand him correctly, these conditions will regulate global temperatues and a run-away green house will not occur. This is just my interpretation. Please consult the source artifacts to confirm this. As you know, this is a hot topic. I suspect that his rhetoric is at least partly a reaction out of frustration. However, I am not an apologist for him so that is something I will bring up to him. However, I've noticed the same sort of thing from both sides of the argument. How many times have we seen someone who has a reasoned opposing point of view to AGW called an denialist and so on. I'm trying to sort the the political BS name calling and such to get closer to the nitty gritty of the issue. And here is the full report for other supporting data: But how data is presented is everything! Is it not? That is exactly the issue I am trying to chase down. Which liar am I to believe? Does Co2 cause global warming? That is the question. If Co2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere then how can it multiply the green house effect? See here===> http://http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html Based on what I read, I don't agree that he ignores anthropogenic sources. As for the ocean's ability to absorb Co2 I don't know what he thinks so will ask him. I don't. Thanks, I'll check it out. Point taken. I'll ask him about them. Peer reviewed by whom? If it is political, how can peer review itself be above suspicion? Again, just playing devils advocate here but, he has argued that the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed and yet, it is being used to drive public policy. He has put his views on the internet in a very public place and has invited anyone who wants to to go there and raise their concerns, comment, or question him, or even peer review his work to do so. You can comment on his work right there. I think you are both saying the same thing but from opposit points of view. I would like to see some knowlegable folks to debate these things with him. I'll do the best that I can but I am no subject matter expert so all I can do is ask questions. It should not be GW denier but rather AGW denier or Co2 denier. A good healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. And I am not prepared just yet to lump Glassman into the same category as a creationist because unlike the latter, he does appear to have some subject matter expertise coupled with a very strong physics background. So unlike creationism, this has all the ear marks of being a scientific debate as apposed to a science versus thelogical debate. Thanks for taking the time Infy. :cheers: Paul

Awesome replies! Thanks. I did pick up on his apparent disdain for climate scientists. Perhaps he is a victim of, and a bit ticked off at the politicalization of the subject matter who knows. I mean there is no shortage of hype surrounding this very politically sensative subject. However, I was also able to detect a fairly high degree of technical expertise as well with regards to the related physics. He certainly does display some core competencies in those areas. He welcomes comments to his work on his web site. I will bring up some of the issues that you folks have brought to the table and see how he replies. Perhaps some of you could chime in there as well. He seems to be inviting reasoned rebuttle or questions. The benefit for folks like me is that I get to learn from it all. I don't post here often but I read quite a bit here. I am very appreciative of this web site and although you don't know me that well, I know most of you because I read your writings and replies here. Thanks so much, Paul

As a laymen, I am trying to be fair and open minded in regards to AGW. If I come across something that argues intelligently against it, I am just as interested as I should be for arguments for. It is a very important issue and I am trying to clearly understand the arguements from both sides. I pretty much always feel like there might be something that is being hidden from me. Thanks for the reply.

Thanks for th reply. Can you provide some specific examples of his false arguments? Thanks

The problem is that there is always "yet another article" trying to prove a point one way or another. The political aspect of this whole thing is unfortunate. Science shouldn't be political in my view but it is. The author raised several issues. Most of the replies here have been very high level. Can you offer some specific challenges or suggestions that might help me to better understand the errors contained in his analysis? He doesn't seem like a run of the mill dummy and he has some pretty impressive credentials. Thanks Paul

Has anyone read this or commented on it yet? I'd be interested in seeing what you all think. CO2 ACQUITTAL (Rocket Scientist's Journal)

If I were a betting person, I'd bet on some more new extinctions occuring. What evidence in nature do we have that adaptation to radical environmental changes happen quickly enough to save most creatures? Adaptation through mutation appears to be a very slow process in most instances. This sounds like a potententially interesting new topic. :evil:

Is this a gimick or is there something too it? I'd appreciate thoughtful feed back on this. Here is a link ==> Cosmoclimatology — Spacecenter Thanks Paul

Thanks for the link. Still much confusion and misleading information. It can be argued that money is being paid on both sides and that what we are left with is an "outcome based science". That is what is so frustrating. It has been said that if you torture the numbers or the data enough, they will confess to anything. One of the things that struck me in reading the links provided in the rebuttle is the "vast" amounts of Co2 that we humans put into the atmosphere. "Vast amounts", compared to what? If simply injecting relatively moderate amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere is all that is required to heat the planet then every time a volcano goes off the planet should heat up. Or every time there is a huge forest fire, the planet should heat up. I am not at all convinced that Co2 alone will do it. And none of that is even taking into consideration the warming of the oceans themselves by purely natural causes such as under sea volcanos and or thermal vents. It shouldn't be that difficult to demonstrate a cause and affect relationship yet that is what is lacking in a convincing way. I remain open minded on this topic. I am very concerned however that the rhetoric of human caused global warming is far too strong for the supposed scienctific data that supports it. I also fail to see how simply studying the poles will provide a comprehensive picture of what is going on at a global level. Should we not also look at our immediate solar system to see what is going on? Politics and money appear to have a more profound affect on what we are lead to believe than is healthy for human kind. My concern is that if we convince people that global climate change can be regulated by human activity, we set ourselves up for failure as a species. It seems to me that our long term survival depends largely on our ability to do the things we can, and know the things we cannot do, and prepare accordingly.

I don't know if it is acceptable to post links to documentaries so if not please forgive me admins and mods. This documentary appeared on the BBC and actually gives a lot of good information on climate science and contradicts a lot of global warming mythology. UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Global+warming+swindle Enjoy! Again, if I have broken some rule here I apologize in advance.

No problem. You can have all the minidisks you like. You can share the SAN and virtual tape as well. Throw in a little Microfocus and .NET running on Linux. It's all good. :shrug: C++ya, Paul

We old IBM Mainframe guys have been doing virtualization for decades. :shrug: I can run hundreds of Linux instances on my machine and still have a mainframe operating system running in a different LPAR. Glad to see the micro world finally catching up a little. :cheer:

I'm curious about this as well. :(

I have been following this thread off and on since the beginning. I find the topic interesting and very much admire the wonderful thinking that has gone into it. I would like to see the topic kept alive and have further discusssion. It may become a topic better suited to philosophy though. Back on topic. I would like to see this "consciousness" you and Chen are referring to expanded upon in further discussion. In kindness and respect, Paul

Chen, please do not think that my comments were being directed at you personally or in a mean spirited way. That was not my intent. I do recognize that due to the terse way in which I replied, that what I wrote could easily be misinterpreted. I said "I have an eerie feeling that you have ascribed a set of values to consciousness that may not be deserved." Having read through the other replies including yours in this thread, I think I was correct. You do seem to be ascribing some new meanings to the word "consciousness" that is outside of our normal understanding of the words definition. I agree with Infi that this topic is probably better suited to philosophy than astronomy or cosmology. I may be wrong and am certainly interested in hearing other points of view but, I suspect very strongly that "consciousness" as I understand the meaning of the word and from my lifes experience is not always a very reliable indicator of "reality". I think it is for this reason that we rely so heavily on things such as the scientific method, falsification, testing, replication, expirimentation, et cetera. You said; The above statement may be true. But, it is completely meaningless. For all intent and purposes, if we don't know "it" exists, whatever "it" is, it has no meaning or value in our lives. I would submit that it only becomes interesting and meaningful once it is discovered and can be studied, understood, or utilized. For example, 83151 or 92397. The Mandelbrot Set can be created using purly randomly generated numbers in a computer program. Chaos in nature seems, well, natural. It is like the age old riddle, does a tree falling in the forest still make a sound even if there is no one around to hear it? Is there music in the spheres? Do black holes have back doors or, do they just simply cease to exist? :weather_snowing: