My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

I totally agree that is what we should be doing.... I was just emphasising that I still hope for some miraculous new natural system that protects us from our own stupidity, because we certainly don't seem to be able to agree on what to do... especially with FB spreading intellectually bankrupt FUD and comparing repeatable, demonstrable science with gullibility and making huge leaps of faith.

 

I think FB's taken huge leaps of faith into denial land.

 

Does anyone else think that FB's actually here for conversation, an actual exchange of ideas? Blatant trolling gets under my skin... should we call a moderator?:hyper:

[freeztar]

should we call a moderator?:hyper:

 

You rang? ;)

 

I think there's a big rift in *how* things are being discussed in this thread. Some people are arguing from a social aspect, with little sound science to support their arguments, and others are providing sound science with little connection to the social aspects. Some are doing both equally.

 

As this is a *science* forum, we do require that members back up their claims and make their arguments from sound scientific evidence, either way. If people want to discuss the sociological/psychological aspects of AGW, then a new thread should be created in the appropriate forum.

 

For this thread (and almost every other thread on this site with very few exceptions), please only link to a valid scientific source (this could be peer reviewed journal articles or "popular" science mag articles that specifically reference peer reviewed science) when you are making a scientific claim. Opinionated articles may not hold up to scientific scrutiny and may be subject to a violation of our rules. Violating the site rules (in this case, the rule to support your claims) can lead to infractions which can restrict your ability to make posts here. Feel free to PM me if anyone has questions about this.

 

This is fair warning for everyone! I'll be watching this thread closely for a little while...

 

Carry on! :)

[Eclipse Now]

Thank you. I respect the scientific discussion and material from reputable sources being contributed here.

[Flying Binghi]

freeztar, working with the site rules, how does one include something like this article in the discussion -

 

UP to 29,000 jobs would be lost in Victoria by 2020, under carbon emissions cuts backed by federal climate change adviser Ross Garnaut.

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,24555790-2862,00.html

 

I dont know where a 'peer' reviewed reference to job losses would be found. IMO, when people are at risk of loosing their jobs, I think their so-called "belief" in AGW may very well be diferent.

 

 

 

...Anyway, back to the thread.(so many questions to answer)

 

Re the C02 affecting the worlds oceans. Via Oceanus -

 

...If dimethylsulfide (DMS) production is speeded up by global climate change, as many scientists believe it will be, then it could provide a cooling effect. That means DMS could help offset greenhouse warming.

 

That hopeful claim has been made for more than two decades. In 1987, British chemist James Lovelock and several colleagues popularized an idea first proposed by others that algae might play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate.

WHOI : Oceanus : DMS: The Climate Gas You've Never Heard Of

[Flying Binghi]

Michaelangelica, have you got your copy of the Garnaut review yet ?

 

The book is over 600 pages and weighs about 1.5 kg :hyper:

[Michaelangelica]

Michaelangelica, have you got your copy of the Garnaut review yet ?

 

The book is over 600 pages and weighs about 1.5 kg :hyper:

From what I have read about him, and his pronouncements in the papers, I think he is an idiot-way out of his depth.

I guess the Govt. wants you to pay for the report too?

[Eclipse Now]

I dont know where a 'peer' reviewed reference to job losses would be found. IMO, when people are at risk of loosing their jobs, I think their so-called "belief" in AGW may very well be diferent.

 

1. This thread is about the scientific veracity of global warming, not your politically influenced opinion of it and faith that the scientific evidence is all wrong.

2. That report ignores how many extra local jobs a green economy can create. The German experience under Dr Herman Scheer indicates it can revitalise rural communities, put money back into a local villagers own pockets and create a more robust local economy, free economies from the tyranny of importing oil (eventually), and basically create energy and with it food security. Just as war can sometime stimulate and create jobs, just as big spending on infrastructure can create jobs, so to a GREEN ECONOMY can CREATE JOBS AND LOCAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND WEALTH. Bring it on... the green economy. It's all good.

[freeztar]

freeztar, working with the site rules, how does one include something like this article in the discussion -

 

UP to 29,000 jobs would be lost in Victoria by 2020, under carbon emissions cuts backed by federal climate change adviser Ross Garnaut.

 

Carbon crisis Victoria | Herald Sun

 

I dont know where a 'peer' reviewed reference to job losses would be found. IMO, when people are at risk of loosing their jobs, I think their so-called "belief" in AGW may very well be diferent.

 

That article has to do with social implications of taking political action regarding climate policy. Whether one is going to lose one's job or not should not change one's "belief" in climate science. As I mentioned before, this would be an article that would fit in a thread entitled, say, "Politics and AGW" or "Social impacts of climate legislation" or something similar. As far as discussing the validity of current climate science, this article provides nothing.

 

...Anyway, back to the thread.(so many questions to answer)

 

Re the C02 affecting the worlds oceans. Via Oceanus -

 

...If dimethylsulfide (DMS) production is speeded up by global climate change, as many scientists believe it will be, then it could provide a cooling effect. That means DMS could help offset greenhouse warming.

 

That hopeful claim has been made for more than two decades. In 1987, British chemist James Lovelock and several colleagues popularized an idea first proposed by others that algae might play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate.

WHOI : Oceanus : DMS: The Climate Gas You've Never Heard Of

 

That is an example of a good source. It references journal articles! However, again, it's a bit beyond the context of this thread. There's another thread that this article would be perfect for:

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/10165-the-solutions-to-global-warming-include.html?highlight=solutions+global+warming

 

Hope that helped, let me know if it didn't.

[Flying Binghi]

From what I have read about him, and his pronouncements in the papers, I think he is an idiot-way out of his depth.

I guess the Govt. wants you to pay for the report too?

 

Oooh, thats a bit harsh.

 

I seen the report for sale in a book shop - $80.00 :hyper: the irony was'nt lost on me...how much C02 produced making a 1.5 kilo book that is mostly about the impact of C02..................:)

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Re, My "belief", I find this reference to poorly sited temperature stations -

 

How not to measure temperature

 

Watts Up With That?: weather_stations Archives

 

Have there been any peer reviewed studys of the possibly false temp reading historys of these stations ?

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The German experience under Dr Herman Scheer indicates it can revitalise rural communities, put money back into a local villagers own pockets and create a more robust local economy, free economies from the tyranny of importing oil (eventually), and basically create energy and with it food security.

 

Eclipse Now, perhaps a reference link so I can have a look at the "German experience". Perhaps put the answer in the other thread you started a while back ;)

[freeztar]

Re, My "belief", I find this reference to poorly sited temperature stations -

 

How not to measure temperature

 

Watts Up With That?: weather_stations Archives

 

Ok, say we toss out all the surface monitoring stations.

 

What about Satellite temperature measurements?

 

What about radiosonde measurements?

 

What about borehole analysis?

 

What about rising ocean temps?

 

What about....well, you get the point. ;)

 

Even if we throw out all of the surface monitoring data, we still see a warming trend with a variety of other temperature measurements.

[Flying Binghi]

Ok, say we toss out all the surface monitoring stations.

 

What about Satellite temperature measurements?

 

What about radiosonde measurements?

 

What about borehole analysis?

 

What about rising ocean temps?

 

What about....well, you get the point.

 

Even if we throw out all of the surface monitoring data, we still see a warming trend with a variety of other temperature measurements.

 

Could be the surface temps are relavent -

 

(extract)

 

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

 

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

 

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

 

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

 

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

 

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

 

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

 

 

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

WECN May 2007

[InfiniteNow]

What part of all that was the peer-reviewed part which countered the fact of human induced global climate change?

[Flying Binghi]

What part of all that was the peer-reviewed part which countered the fact of human induced global climate change?

 

(Extract) Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate. “I was laughed off the platform for saying that,”

 

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

 

 

I would of thought Brysons doubts about the A in AGW are entirely relavent to a thread called - My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky.

[InfiniteNow]

WECN May 2007

 

 

I would of thought Brysons doubts about the A in AGW are entirely relavent to a thread called - My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky.

 

I strongly suggest you learn what peer reviewed research is, as this will help you come to the realization that what you are sharing is crap, and you'll be able to try again.

 

I really don't care what the thread title is. If you're arguing the science itself, and you're not using scientific sources or methods to do so, then you're both ignorant and foolish.

 

If you're content being seen as ignorant and foolish, then please, do carry on as you have already. You contribute nothing to this thread but a dismal view on the education and understanding level within the populace, and depression amongst those of us who think we can actually tackle this issue in a mature and intelligent way.

 

I suppose you don't think that cigarettes cause cancer, either.

[Flying Binghi]

I strongly suggest you learn what peer reviewed research is, as this will help you come to the realization that what you are sharing is crap, and you'll be able to try again.

 

I really don't care what the thread title is. If you're arguing the science itself, and you're not using scientific sources or methods to do so, then you're both ignorant and foolish.

 

If you're content being seen as ignorant and foolish, then please, do carry on as you have already. You contribute nothing to this thread but a dismal view on the education and understanding level within the populace, and depression amongst those of us who think we can actually tackle this issue in a mature and intelligent way.

 

I suppose you don't think that cigarettes cause cancer, either.

 

InfiniteNow, you dont think Reid Bryson had any peer reviewed papers written eh ?

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow, you dont think Reid Bryson had any peer reviewed papers written eh ?

 

That's not relevant since I never claimed that he didn't. What I have said is that you continue to fail in providing any peer reviewed research in support of your position.

 

You contribute nothing to this thread but denialist ignorance. Prove me wrong with some science or STFU.

[freeztar]

Could be the surface temps are relavent -

 

Of course surface temperatures are relevant. I was merely pointing out that they were not *necessary* to see a warming trend.

 

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

 

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

 

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

 

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

 

Where is this statistic from? Did he just create it on the spot? What about deserts?

 

Water acts to trap infrared radiation from both the sun and the ground, and dry desert air is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night.

Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This is exactly why you must provide *scientific evidence*. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of the post as it's a bunch of red herrings and appeal to authority. Suffice it to say that you *need* to provide *scientific evidence* or you will start receiving infractions.

 

Just to be clear, "scientific evidence" refers to data that has been collected using the scientific method.

 

If this is still unclear FB, send me a PM.