More Junk Science?
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Global warming seen worse than predicted
http://www.comcast.net/ar...S-CLIMATE/

Who knows what to believe anymore. The IPCC did share the Nobel Prize with The Goreacle so take the article with a grain of carbon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ate_Change

The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Who knows what to believe anymore. The IPCC did share the Nobel Prize with The Goreacle so take the article with a grain of carbon.

If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you're discounting the IPCC - and by extention, the Nobel committee - because you disagree with/don't approve of Al Gore?

I didn't know the Nobel people needed to consult with you before finalizing their decision on whom to bestow their awards upon, Kyle (I'm sure Cooperstown won't make the same mistake ).
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Junk science = anything with a result that the wing nuts disagree with

Junk science = anything with a result that challenges the wing nuts' literal interpretation of the Bible


The earth is only 6,000 years old, you know! Carbon dating is a myth. Man lived along side the dinosaurs. Not sure why the dinosaurs didn't make it onto the ark. Maybe they were too large?
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
>> Not sure why the dinosaurs didn't make it onto the ark. Maybe they were too large?

Yeah, I've wondered about that too. I heard someone speculate once that they didn't make it because they weren't kosher, but that doesn't fly . . . pigs aren't kosher and they made it.

Size alone shouldn't have been a factor, several different species of elephants and hippopotami made it on board and there were many species of dinosaurs that size and smaller.

And it wasn't just dinos that didn't make the cut, all of those reptilian critters that we find buried in lower sediments than dinosaurs were also left behind. And look at the bones and fossils that we find in sediment layers above the dinosaurs - what about those animals? What did they do to get barred from the ark? Why elephants and not mastodons and mammoths? Why African and Asian lions and not New World Lions and saber tooth cats? What did ground sloths and giant beaver do to miss the boat?

And what about plants? I've always been curious about that. Were seeds, cuttings, spores & etc taken onboard as well? Sure some seeds and many spores could survive a 40 day deluge, but a lot of the plants we see today couldn't.

And what about the New World, Australian, New Zealand, and Oceania? How did those plants and animals lucky enough to get on the boat make it from the Near East to, say, Easter Island?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Ha!

I was always pissed that the unicorns didn't make it.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 12 years ago
Isn't there a Gary Larson cartoon with the ark pulling away and the unicorns, who arrived late, looking after it sadly?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 12 years ago


[This message has been edited by Frank Hardy (edited 2/15/2009).]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1607) 12 years ago


Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Brian, I'm not saying that the information is wrong just that the organization (and by extension Al Gore) have a vested interest in the data they're presenting so it may not be the most unbiased of sources.

And yes, the same goes for the other side as well
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
>>a vested interest. . . .

I'm still unclear on that - mostly all I hear is just "noise" - what are the competing/conflicting interests?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
It's just more Chicken Little rhetoric from the same IPCC committee persons who picked and chose the "science" in the UN report to make it reflect their agenda. Of course they have to try and validate their conclusions. They all have a vested (read: financial) interest in Al Gore's campaign for Cap and Trade.

Oh, and by the way; can we get a little more humorous ranting from the Short Bus Choir? The unicorn thing really didn't do it for me. Football is over and I need a diversion today.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Jim rides in the back of the short bus.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Damnit Brady, I thought I paralyzed you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Jim Brady wasn't intelligent enough to ride the short bus.

They tried to mainstream him, but it just didn't work out.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Guess I'll hafta watch golf......
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
The chair lift on the short bus is broken.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
I figured you were a NASCAR fan, Jim.
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1334) 12 years ago
16 February 2009
Dire new warning on climate from IPCC scientist
by Kate Melville

Previously unconsidered positive feedbacks in the climate system (such as the release of arctic permafrost) have led a Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist to warn that "as a society we are facing a climate crisis that is larger and harder to deal with than any of us thought."

"Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising more rapidly than expected, increasing the danger that without aggressive action to reduce emissions the climate system could cross a critical threshold by the end of the century," says Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group 2. Field is overseeing the Working Group 2 Report on the predicted impacts of climate change for the IPCC Fifth assessment, scheduled to be published in 2014.

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought," says Field. "Over the last decade developing countries such as China and India have increased their electric power generation by burning more coal. Economies in the developing world are becoming more, not less carbon-intensive. We are definitely in unexplored terrain with the trajectory of climate change, in the region with forcing, and very likely impacts, much worse than predicted in the fourth assessment."

Perhaps more worryingly, new studies are revealing potentially dangerous feedbacks in the climate system that could convert current carbon sinks into carbon sources. Field points to tropical forests as a prime example. Vast amounts of carbon are stored in the vegetation of moist tropical forests, which are resistant to wildfires because of their wetness. But warming temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns threaten to dry the forests, making them less fireproof. Researchers estimate that loss of forests through wildfires and other causes during the next century could boost atmospheric concentration of CO2 by up to 100 parts per million (ppm) over the current 386 ppm, with possibly devastating consequences for global climate.

At the same time, warming in the Arctic is expected to speed up the decay of plant matter that has been in cold storage in permafrost for thousands of years. "There is about 1,000 billion tons of carbon in these soils," says Field. "When you consider that the total amount of carbon released from fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is around 350 billion tons, the implications for global climate are staggering."

"The [previously published] IPCC fourth assessment didn't consider either the tundra-thawing or tropical forest feedbacks in detail because they weren't yet well understood," he says. "But new studies are now available, so we should be able to assess a wider range of factors and possible climate outcomes. One thing that seems to be certain, however, is that as a society we are facing a climate crisis that is larger and harder to deal with than any of us thought. The sooner we take decisive action, the better our chances."
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+201) 12 years ago
...and here, as far as I am concerned, is the most interesting part:



You see the red line? That's CO2. Carbon Dioxide. And as you'll note, as a rule, CO2 does not rise, followed by temperature; no, what happens is temperature rises, then CO2 rises, and then temperature falls, followed by CO2 falling.

In other words, CO2 lags temperature, not leads it.

This would be indicated by the blue line (temperature) falling, then the red line (CO2) falling to the right of it, which would be later in time.

You can clearly see this at -375000 years, -325000 years, -240000 years, and -100000 years. For all four major temperature cycles, CO2 lags temperature, not leads it.

These are objective facts - neither side of the AGW controversy can deny them.

Now, it seems to me that there are two ways to read this graph correctly.

The first is that CO2 is a consequence of the warming process, in which case it is not very relevant.

This is primarily indicated by the fact that CO2 increases occur after warming; not the other way around; it is also indicated by the fact that temperature falls sharply while CO2 is still high, which clearly shows that high levels of CO2 alone cannot account for holding global temperatures up.

The other is as the AGW position partially claims, where CO2 drives the range of global temperature.

In that case, the historical record repeatedly demonstrates that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere leads to rapid global cooling, at which point the CO2 (perhaps generated by plants and animals which cannot survive in cooler temperatures) eventually falls off.

Historically speaking, the data contradict the direction of the AGW claims. Either AGW is outright invalid (first case), or the risk is actually cooling, not warming (second case.)

What you cannot do, however, is read this graph to support the idea that high CO2 causes warming. This is because it clearly shows that while CO2 remains high, temperatures fall anyway, and then CO2 drops.

Looking carefully at the graph, something else in the climate was visibly driving temperature far more powerfully than CO2 does; the most likely candidate for this is the evaporation / precipitation cycle (E/P cycle), which accounts for significant heat removal from ground level by the mechanism of dropping cool water and evaporating warm water, then radiating the heat in the evaporated water out into space. Also by the fact that unlike CO2, the E/P cycle is highly dynamic - as temperature rises, the E/P cycle accelerates to move more water in any area where there is water.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I think this thread could become awesome if only we can get some of the progressives questioning the soundness of 'carbon' (dioxide) dating.

http://goracle.org/goregiveness.php
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
I don't have any objections to carbon dating. Even carbons deserve to find that special someone.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Sorry, Pain. Your graph goes back WAAAAAAAY before most of your righty friends think the universe existed.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+201) 12 years ago
What makes you think I have righty friends? Or lefty, for that matter?

I'm about 70% libertarian, 10% right, 10% left, 10% radical. So *everyone* hates me.

Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Pain, what is the source of your graph?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 12 years ago
Bob and Bob think the only colors are black and white.

What's funny about that graph is that that exact one was the centerpiece of "an inconvenient truth".

Personally, I don't know what the real truth is about Global Warming, but I do think that the fact that it was a magic bullet for environmentalists like Gore who want to push the same causes they have been supporting for decades. With GW, everyone HAS to listen to them or face impending DOOM. I'm not saying that they made it up, but they took it and ran with it. I do think that this has caused people to go much further with GW than the evidence merits. I personally don't think anything discredits the IPCC more than the trumpeting of the so-called "consensus" of scientists. Consensus is irrelevant in science. There is no "consensus" that force equals mass times acceleration. It has been proven and can be demonstrated.

Admittedly, climate change is much more difficult to prove conclusively, but I do think that there are those that "want to believe" in GW because it motivates people to do things that they wanted them to do anyway. The upside is that a lot of things that we would do in the name of GW would be good whether it's real or not (reducing air pollution, developing alternative energy sources, etc.)

However, I don't personally believe that the climate can be accurately predicted with computer models, and I would have to point out that the end of the world is regularly predicted, so far with a 0% accuracy rate, so my advice to everyone on the planet, if they're asking, is...

Top
Posted by Major Pain (+201) 12 years ago
Bruce,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/...hange.html

The data sources for the graph are listed underneath.
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1334) 12 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090225/sc_nm/us_climate_polars_4

GENEVA (Reuters) - The Arctic and Antarctic regions are warming faster than previously thought, raising world sea levels and making drastic global climate change more likely than ever, international scientists said on Wednesday.
New evidence of the trend was uncovered by wide-ranging research in the two areas over the past two years in a United Nations-backed program dubbed the International Polar Year (IPY), they said.

"Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic as well as global atmospheric circulation and sea-level," according to a summary of a report by the researchers.
An assessment of the findings of the research was still being refined, said the IPY's "State of Polar Research" report.
"But it now appears certain that both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and thus raising sea level, and that the rate of ice loss from Greenland is growing," it said.

"New data also confirm that warming in the Antarctic is much more widespread than it was thought prior to IPY."
More than 63 countries and some 10,000 scientists took part in the $1.5 billion program, which began in March 2007 and ends next month.

IPY experts told a news conference that melting appeared to be speeding up, especially in the Western Antarctic region that stretches to near the southern tip of Latin America and which had earlier been thought stable.

"One could expect to see quite dramatic changes in weather in Chile and Argentina as a result," said Ian Allison, a co-chairman of the program's steering committee.
Such a trend would be felt around the world.

David Carlson, director of IPY's international program office, said levels of salt in the sea around the Antarctic were growing, indicating that the continent's underlying ice shelves were melting.

But the experts said the exact speed of these developments was difficult to measure, and the global effect they were likely to have impossible to predict accurately given the current research tools available.

The overall global warming trend has long been tracked by another U.N.-sponsored body, the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The mandate of the IPY, which is linked with the IPCC, was to focus on what is happening around the poles.

Like the IPCC, the IPY experts said even a relatively small rise in sea-levels could threaten huge populations of cities in low-lying coastal areas, mainly in developing countries but in Europe and North America as well.

The report said research under the IPY had revealed larger-than-expected pools of carbon in Arctic permafrost, or frozen terrain, which further warming could release into the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gas.
But it gave no estimates of the size of these pools.
While the challenges to funding posed by the economic crisis, the report said governments need to keep pumping money into North and South Pole research in order to keep tabs on global warming pressures.

It was the fourth internationally coordinated scientific program on the polar regions, following previous efforts undertaken in 1882-83, 1932-33 and 1957-58.
The IPY was organized by the independent International Council for Science and the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
(Editing by Katie Nguyen)
Top