Is news coverage of stories global?
-
Yes, it has all been been covered. But the irritating thing is that Norwegian politicans and journalists tend to take anything from the UN as gospel. It is an important arena for them as we are not members of EU. But most people I talk to are fed up of the whole GW business.
Haakon S. wrote:
But the irritating thing is that Norwegian politicans and journalists tend to take anything from the UN as gospe
Yep, as in the UK. Mind you, with the credibility of the entire AGW movement in tatters I dont know how much longer this will be the case.
Haakon S. wrote:
But most people I talk to are fed up of the whole GW business.
Fed up as in just plain bored by it, or fed up as in they know its a crock of shit and are sick of it being rammed down their throats by politicians and the media?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except it's not evenly distributed
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer and it has most of the industry and population then it will have the higher level. As you say though it spreads pretty quickly. The thing is, and this is where you need to lok at raw station data, not the GISS NCDC data since most of it is fabricated (look at a recent paper by D'Alio or someone like that). A soure I use for raw station data is John Dalys site, google for "what the stations say" www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm[^]. Take a look at the southern hemisphere stations. This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one. I believe it comes form Sheffield in the UK, which is a long runing series. I checked with the historic data form the Met office website and it tallies, and shows warming of 0.5 degrees or so obver the last centiry, so I am pretty confident the data on John Dalys site is genuine. As for the northern hemisphere, see how many stations show the same pattern as this general temp series for north of 70`. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/arctictemps.jpg[^] As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png[^] As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer
Sea water does release it as it warms, but currently the oceans are our largest carbon SINK. Right now they're ABSORBING it, not releasing it. I'm seeing articles saying that the Indian Ocean may be approaching the point where it might switch (This isn't a year-to-year thing - More on the timeline of ice ages), but currently all of the oceans are absorbing CO2.
fat_boy wrote:
As you say though it spreads pretty quickly.
No, I said it's being continuously produced and consumed... Emitted from animal life, absorbed by plant life and oceans.
fat_boy wrote:
As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic\_monthly\_wx\_review.png\[^\]
You know, if this were as simple as looking at a temperature chart from one sensor and seeing if it went up or down, the entire AGW debate would have been over long ago. First, you have to look at global data, not just one or two regions. Second, you have to take into account the short-term cycles, instead looking at general warming or cooling trends.
fat_boy wrote:
As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came from.
I think that's a vast oversimplification, and only holds true if there's a thin layer of CO2, as opposed to the entire atmosphere.
fat_boy wrote:
Yet to me, and using the moon as a comparison, if ALL the solar IR got thropugh we would be toast so its a good thing we have an atmosphere that is somewhat impermeable to IR during the day but by acting as a heat store keeps us warm at night.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously the
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
William Winner wrote:
Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW
Sorry, and just how much meterology do you study in 'environmental' science?
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anythign else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a fucking financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer, but sometimes a bit of cash, does that make me Rogers and Hamerstien? And then again, I used to make money fixing cars, so I must know a lot about it. And then, fuck me, I spent most of my schooldays learnign about science! Yes, Science! You know, where you are trained to test a theory experimentaly and observe the outcome. I wonder if that in anyway makes me capable of noticing the fact that the change in temperatures across the globe in the last 60 years is totally out of kilter with GH gas warming theory. Hmmm, perhaps it does.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:16 AM
-
oh yea, well you are a poopy head. ;) You are also pretty much spot on. My thinking on this whole subject is simple. If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good. People need to start looking at long term and not right now...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good.
The good old, it doesnt mater if its a crock of shit, its god for the planet anyway. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 is plant food and increases crop yields globally thus helping relieve starvation, and that it doesnt cause any warming? How will the act of limiting CO2 have been of any help to the future?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
William Winner wrote:
Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases.
OK, now down to the facts. Greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system, causing heating at the surface of the planet [^] So, since the surface doesnt contain any CO2, it is the troposphere that traps the heat. This heat is then radiated towards the surface. A radiator has to be hotter then the receiver of the heat, otherwise the heat would flow the other way. This is why the troposphere has to be HOTTER than the surface. As fopr polar warmihg, here is a snippet from Nature, quoted here many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures[^] Thats BOTH polar regions, not one. Its GH gass theory 101. I am surprised, since you have studied 'environmental science', that you dont know this. I would have thought basic GH gas theory would have been part of you sylabus.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good.
The good old, it doesnt mater if its a crock of shit, its god for the planet anyway. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 is plant food and increases crop yields globally thus helping relieve starvation, and that it doesnt cause any warming? How will the act of limiting CO2 have been of any help to the future?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ah the good old, I'll throw in a scenario and act like this is obviously the only way it could end up argument. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally thus increasing starvation and that the increased yields didn't compensate? How will the act of continuing to build CO2 levels have been any help to the future? Since you want to deal with hypotheticals.
-
Ah the good old, I'll throw in a scenario and act like this is obviously the only way it could end up argument. Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally thus increasing starvation and that the increased yields didn't compensate? How will the act of continuing to build CO2 levels have been any help to the future? Since you want to deal with hypotheticals.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
Yea, and everywhere I read these studies on the effects of CO2 on plants involve anti-GW websites. It's like these folks latched on to something and won't drop it. Weather is still being figured out. Considering I have yet to hear an accurate 7 day forcast I am pretty sure it will be a while yet before someone can give me a fully functional explanation for why Britain got hit with snow. And crop yields don't need extra CO2. Trust me. All we need to do is switch to crops that aren't as damaging to their local environment. We drop our dependance on corn (dangerous for me to say in Iowa) and increase Soybeans and a few other low impact crops and food yields would go up substantially since less fertilizer would be needed. But you'll ignore this answer because it means changing habits and heaven forbid we have to do that...
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Tell me, just how good will it be for the planet if it turns out that, correctly, CO2 also causes massive weather pattern shifts which destroy crops globally
Unless you can find proof then you cannot substantiate this claim. And if you are refering to the IPCC AR4 then the scientist on whose initial findings the IPCC based that report has since retracted sayiug there is no stastical evidence for an increase in frequency or severity of bad weather events. So the only fact we do know at present is that CO2 increases crop yields. --edit-- And here is a link to that retraction. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245695/UN-climate-change-panel-blunders-wrongly-linking-global-warming-rise-severe-floodings.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:57 AM
- This study from 1992[^] suggests that too much CO2 might hurt plants. 2) This[^] more recent one suggests similar, when combined with other likely consequences of climate change (Higher temperatures, increased precipitation, more nitrogen in the soil) 3) This study[^] shows that increased CO2 helps plant growth, but lowers quality. It does mention that this study did not include increased temperature as a factor - Just higher CO2 concentration. 4) This study[^] seems to support your position, that it would increase plant growth. So I'm seeing research on both sides of the issue. Now I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can consider your position to be a "fact." It may be true, or it may not be. At this point, I consider it in dispute.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, it makes sense. Not only is CO2 produced by man but sea water releases it as it gets warmer so it would make sense that since the northern hemisphere is getting warmer
Sea water does release it as it warms, but currently the oceans are our largest carbon SINK. Right now they're ABSORBING it, not releasing it. I'm seeing articles saying that the Indian Ocean may be approaching the point where it might switch (This isn't a year-to-year thing - More on the timeline of ice ages), but currently all of the oceans are absorbing CO2.
fat_boy wrote:
As you say though it spreads pretty quickly.
No, I said it's being continuously produced and consumed... Emitted from animal life, absorbed by plant life and oceans.
fat_boy wrote:
As you know the US was warmer in the 1930s than today, the same is true for the Greenland ice core data. This pattern, warmer in the 1930s than today, is quite common in the raw station data on Dalys website. This is a newspaper report fomr 1922 describing warming in the arctic. It is entirely in line with the temperature series for the region. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic\_monthly\_wx\_review.png\[^\]
You know, if this were as simple as looking at a temperature chart from one sensor and seeing if it went up or down, the entire AGW debate would have been over long ago. First, you have to look at global data, not just one or two regions. Second, you have to take into account the short-term cycles, instead looking at general warming or cooling trends.
fat_boy wrote:
As for using the word 'blocked' in respect of CO2 it is more accurate to say absorbed and reradiated. Since that reradiation happens in all directions ropughly half the absorbed CO2 s reradiated back to where it came from.
I think that's a vast oversimplification, and only holds true if there's a thin layer of CO2, as opposed to the entire atmosphere.
fat_boy wrote:
Yet to me, and using the moon as a comparison, if ALL the solar IR got thropugh we would be toast so its a good thing we have an atmosphere that is somewhat impermeable to IR during the day but by acting as a heat store keeps us warm at night.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously the
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You know, if this were as simple as looking at a temperature chart from one sensor and seeing if it went up or down, the entire AGW debate would have been over long ago. First, you have to look at global data, not just one or two regions. Second, you have to take into account the short-term cycles, instead looking at general warming or cooling trends.
Global data is, or should be, composed from the readings for individual stations. This is why I sent you the link to the raw station data on Dalys website. The reason why one should look at this raw data is because the gloabl temperature series produced by GISS and NCDC has ben found not to be accurate. Take a look at this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/[^] I dont get your point about loooking at short term cycles though, what do you mean?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think that's a vast oversimplification, and only holds true if there's a thin layer of CO2, as opposed to the entire atmosphere.
Well, its is how the re-radiaiton of terrestrial IR is described as part of the GH gas theory. It is re-radiated in all directions, so eventually half will be lost to space, and half will reach the surface. OK, its an aproximation, but the issue here is that on one side of this cloud of CO2 you have the earth producing weak IR and on the other side the sun producing strong IR. What I dont se is how increasing IR can re-radiate IR from the earth back to the earth, yet not re-radiate IR from the sun back to the sun. Given that the sun produces more IR than the earth, one would expect the extra CO2 to reduce even further daytine highs.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Mypoint is that if we didnt have any GH gasses in th eatmosphere we would be as hot as the moon during the day and as cold as it is during the nught so obviously GH gasses mediate temperatures. The more
-
Yea, and everywhere I read these studies on the effects of CO2 on plants involve anti-GW websites. It's like these folks latched on to something and won't drop it. Weather is still being figured out. Considering I have yet to hear an accurate 7 day forcast I am pretty sure it will be a while yet before someone can give me a fully functional explanation for why Britain got hit with snow. And crop yields don't need extra CO2. Trust me. All we need to do is switch to crops that aren't as damaging to their local environment. We drop our dependance on corn (dangerous for me to say in Iowa) and increase Soybeans and a few other low impact crops and food yields would go up substantially since less fertilizer would be needed. But you'll ignore this answer because it means changing habits and heaven forbid we have to do that...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Yea, and everywhere I read these studies on the effects of CO2 on plants involve anti-GW websites.
Yes, you will see a lot. But you an also find it on government websites, gardeners websites, even canabis growers websites. CO2 enrichment has been used for a long time in greenhouses (and no, thiose work differently to the greenhouse effect before you start drawing silly comparisons).
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And crop yields don't need extra CO2.
No? How about feeding people.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
since less fertilizer would be needed
Could less fertilizer be used if CO2 was higher? I havent seen any studies on this, but its an interesting possibility.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
But you'll ignore this answer because it means changing habits and heaven forbid we have to do that...
No, not so. I am genuinely interested in the future of mans ability to feed himself and the world. I just dont think that issues like overpopulation and food supply should be confused with global warming.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You know, if this were as simple as looking at a temperature chart from one sensor and seeing if it went up or down, the entire AGW debate would have been over long ago. First, you have to look at global data, not just one or two regions. Second, you have to take into account the short-term cycles, instead looking at general warming or cooling trends.
Global data is, or should be, composed from the readings for individual stations. This is why I sent you the link to the raw station data on Dalys website. The reason why one should look at this raw data is because the gloabl temperature series produced by GISS and NCDC has ben found not to be accurate. Take a look at this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/[^] I dont get your point about loooking at short term cycles though, what do you mean?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think that's a vast oversimplification, and only holds true if there's a thin layer of CO2, as opposed to the entire atmosphere.
Well, its is how the re-radiaiton of terrestrial IR is described as part of the GH gas theory. It is re-radiated in all directions, so eventually half will be lost to space, and half will reach the surface. OK, its an aproximation, but the issue here is that on one side of this cloud of CO2 you have the earth producing weak IR and on the other side the sun producing strong IR. What I dont se is how increasing IR can re-radiate IR from the earth back to the earth, yet not re-radiate IR from the sun back to the sun. Given that the sun produces more IR than the earth, one would expect the extra CO2 to reduce even further daytine highs.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Mypoint is that if we didnt have any GH gasses in th eatmosphere we would be as hot as the moon during the day and as cold as it is during the nught so obviously GH gasses mediate temperatures. The more
fat_boy wrote:
I dont get your point about loooking at short term cycles though, what do you mean?
From what I've read, climate doesn't seem to be a steady thing. Everything works in cycles... That's why some years are warmer, and some are cooler. I've seen this used to support either side of the debate, actually... Some AGW advocates claim that we're on the down-sloping part of the cycle, but it isn't decreasing fast enough. Some anti-AGW advocates claim that we're just seeing warmer temperatures because we're in the upward-sloping part of it. It's also what makes the results of these studies difficult to read. As an analogy, look at the economy... Forgive the US-centrism, but here's a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (One of the "standard" indicators of the US economy): 1900 - Present[^]... An obvious upward slope, because of inflation. This is the "big picture" in terms of economy. But as we know, the economy works in short-term cycles, so you can change the picture by looking at a smaller range: 2000 - Present[^]. Now you see the big crash from last year... And now it's not that obvious whether we're going up or down. Same thing with the climate (Though not such an obvious long-term trend)... Depending on what period you look at, you can alter the results. There was a debate in the back room a a couple months ago, I believe, where people were talking about the infamous "hide the decline" scandal (Which was just bloody ridiculous - Total misinterpretation). People were playing with the model, and realized that if you change the measured date range only slightly, it completely changes the outcome. Pick a year, and you can engineer your results. You can say the temperature has decreased since the 30s, or you can say it's increased since the 1850s (Just as an example). To complicate it more, we have these short-term cycles on top of the big ice age cycle... Cycles inside cycles... And out of all this, we're trying to measure how much effect we've had in only the past 100-130 years. Not so simple.
fat_boy wrote:
What I dont se is ho
-
- This study from 1992[^] suggests that too much CO2 might hurt plants. 2) This[^] more recent one suggests similar, when combined with other likely consequences of climate change (Higher temperatures, increased precipitation, more nitrogen in the soil) 3) This study[^] shows that increased CO2 helps plant growth, but lowers quality. It does mention that this study did not include increased temperature as a factor - Just higher CO2 concentration. 4) This study[^] seems to support your position, that it would increase plant growth. So I'm seeing research on both sides of the issue. Now I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think we can consider your position to be a "fact." It may be true, or it may not be. At this point, I consider it in dispute.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I found an interesting article on the Canadian governments website about using CO2 in agriculture, I recall that at high levels it caused some plants to become brittle. But I believe those levels were a lot higher than the 1300 ppm they recomend. Those first links are interesting. Thanks. The only counter argument I have is that for decades CO2 has been used in greenhouses to increase crop yields. I will look som more at what you found there. Could be there some types of plants that dont do so well, although this is the first I have heard of it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
William Winner wrote:
Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW
Sorry, and just how much meterology do you study in 'environmental' science?
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anythign else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a fucking financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer, but sometimes a bit of cash, does that make me Rogers and Hamerstien? And then again, I used to make money fixing cars, so I must know a lot about it. And then, fuck me, I spent most of my schooldays learnign about science! Yes, Science! You know, where you are trained to test a theory experimentaly and observe the outcome. I wonder if that in anyway makes me capable of noticing the fact that the change in temperatures across the globe in the last 60 years is totally out of kilter with GH gas warming theory. Hmmm, perhaps it does.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:16 AM
Ah such well-founded debate. Thank you for that...gave me a little chuckle this morning! Did I say anything about how you make your money? Umm...no...I was talking about educational background. As in, what is your formal training in? And you're question about how much "meteorology" have I studied shows just how little you understand what "environmental science" is or this debate. Meteorology is the study of weather. From Wikipedia: "Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)." Note the "in contrast with climatology". We're talking climate not weather. And, you can bet that anyone with an environmental anything degree has had the basics of the greenhouse effect and the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]." EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale. And, yeah, I'm "trained" to "test" theories using scientific techniques. But to begin to "test" a theory, you first have to understand it, which you clearly do not. And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:39 PM
-
fat_boy wrote:
I dont get your point about loooking at short term cycles though, what do you mean?
From what I've read, climate doesn't seem to be a steady thing. Everything works in cycles... That's why some years are warmer, and some are cooler. I've seen this used to support either side of the debate, actually... Some AGW advocates claim that we're on the down-sloping part of the cycle, but it isn't decreasing fast enough. Some anti-AGW advocates claim that we're just seeing warmer temperatures because we're in the upward-sloping part of it. It's also what makes the results of these studies difficult to read. As an analogy, look at the economy... Forgive the US-centrism, but here's a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (One of the "standard" indicators of the US economy): 1900 - Present[^]... An obvious upward slope, because of inflation. This is the "big picture" in terms of economy. But as we know, the economy works in short-term cycles, so you can change the picture by looking at a smaller range: 2000 - Present[^]. Now you see the big crash from last year... And now it's not that obvious whether we're going up or down. Same thing with the climate (Though not such an obvious long-term trend)... Depending on what period you look at, you can alter the results. There was a debate in the back room a a couple months ago, I believe, where people were talking about the infamous "hide the decline" scandal (Which was just bloody ridiculous - Total misinterpretation). People were playing with the model, and realized that if you change the measured date range only slightly, it completely changes the outcome. Pick a year, and you can engineer your results. You can say the temperature has decreased since the 30s, or you can say it's increased since the 1850s (Just as an example). To complicate it more, we have these short-term cycles on top of the big ice age cycle... Cycles inside cycles... And out of all this, we're trying to measure how much effect we've had in only the past 100-130 years. Not so simple.
fat_boy wrote:
What I dont se is ho
Ian Shlasko wrote:
To complicate it more, we have these short-term cycles on top of the big ice age cycle... Cycles inside cycles... And out of all this, we're trying to measure how much effect we've had in only the past 100-130 years. Not so simple.
Yes, this sums it up pretty well. If you lok even further back, over the last 10,000 years at the ice core data you can see a gradual decline in temperature. And we dont know why. Yet we are content, aparently, to worry about a 30 year trend showing a slight increase. That, I dont get. Yes, good link. Here is a snippet "One suprise may be that the earth receives almost twice as much heat from the atmosphere as it does from the sun. But the sun only shines on a given point on the earth half the time, while the atmosphere radiates continuously" I would want to see a measurement of the heat received from the sun at the top of atmosphere to make sense of this because no where does the second respondant list LongWave radiation from the sun as an atmosphere gain. From earth yes, but not from the sun. And the sun produces more of it. This is the bit I think is missing in all the calculations regarding GW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ah such well-founded debate. Thank you for that...gave me a little chuckle this morning! Did I say anything about how you make your money? Umm...no...I was talking about educational background. As in, what is your formal training in? And you're question about how much "meteorology" have I studied shows just how little you understand what "environmental science" is or this debate. Meteorology is the study of weather. From Wikipedia: "Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)." Note the "in contrast with climatology". We're talking climate not weather. And, you can bet that anyone with an environmental anything degree has had the basics of the greenhouse effect and the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]." EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale. And, yeah, I'm "trained" to "test" theories using scientific techniques. But to begin to "test" a theory, you first have to understand it, which you clearly do not. And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:39 PM
No, this was a response, my debate is in the other post. Argue with that if yuo can.
William Winner wrote:
From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]."
So its an unfocused load of sentimental crap aimed at tree huggers. Yeah, thought os.
William Winner wrote:
EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale.
Oh, how cosy! What a drivvelsone description. It just reeks of sentimentalism.
William Winner wrote:
And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
No, not since you lot came along with your rose tinted simplistic agenda. Now you create a computer model built to prove a theory, run it for a few days and call the theory proved. You stopped looking at the real world decades ago. Maybee YOU should stick your head out the window rather than up your arse, you might get a better perspective on whats going on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
William Winner wrote:
Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases.
OK, now down to the facts. Greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system, causing heating at the surface of the planet [^] So, since the surface doesnt contain any CO2, it is the troposphere that traps the heat. This heat is then radiated towards the surface. A radiator has to be hotter then the receiver of the heat, otherwise the heat would flow the other way. This is why the troposphere has to be HOTTER than the surface. As fopr polar warmihg, here is a snippet from Nature, quoted here many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures[^] Thats BOTH polar regions, not one. Its GH gass theory 101. I am surprised, since you have studied 'environmental science', that you dont know this. I would have thought basic GH gas theory would have been part of you sylabus.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system, causing heating at the surface of the planet [^]
Did you know that that information came from the IPCC which you so clearly despise? Here's a graph of daily mean tropospheric temperatures[^]. When we talk climatic warming, we're not talking about tens of degrees, we're talking fractions of a degree. Oh, and by your reasoning that the radiator has to be hotter than the heat it's transmitting, then by that graph, the troposphere is around -8 degrees Fahrenheit, so it can't possibly be radiating heat back. Once again, you've shown us a clear misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect.
fat_boy wrote:
As fopr polar warmihg, here is a snippet from Nature, quoted here many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures[^]
Yeah, follow that quote. That quote doesn't come from Nature. That quote comes from "scienceagogo.com". Nature did not say that "many climate models..." scienceagogo.com did. So, here's the original article from 2002: Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response[^] And here is a second article published last year: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year[^] A true researcher doesn't just find whatever article he can on the internet and take it as truth. You will find a lot of biased opinions at www.climategate.com. You need to actually research what they're saying and where it's coming from. They took a quote from another site and claimed it came from a reputable scientific magazine. Well done climategate.com!
-
No, this was a response, my debate is in the other post. Argue with that if yuo can.
William Winner wrote:
From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]."
So its an unfocused load of sentimental crap aimed at tree huggers. Yeah, thought os.
William Winner wrote:
EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale.
Oh, how cosy! What a drivvelsone description. It just reeks of sentimentalism.
William Winner wrote:
And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
No, not since you lot came along with your rose tinted simplistic agenda. Now you create a computer model built to prove a theory, run it for a few days and call the theory proved. You stopped looking at the real world decades ago. Maybee YOU should stick your head out the window rather than up your arse, you might get a better perspective on whats going on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You've really made my day! Thanks! Who knew that I would start the day smiling because of someone showing me just how little they really know. So much fun.
-
No, this was a response, my debate is in the other post. Argue with that if yuo can.
William Winner wrote:
From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]."
So its an unfocused load of sentimental crap aimed at tree huggers. Yeah, thought os.
William Winner wrote:
EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale.
Oh, how cosy! What a drivvelsone description. It just reeks of sentimentalism.
William Winner wrote:
And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
No, not since you lot came along with your rose tinted simplistic agenda. Now you create a computer model built to prove a theory, run it for a few days and call the theory proved. You stopped looking at the real world decades ago. Maybee YOU should stick your head out the window rather than up your arse, you might get a better perspective on whats going on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So its an unfocused load of sentimental crap aimed at tree huggers.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, how cosy! What a drivvelsone description. It just reeks of sentimentalism.
You know the moment you stop attacking the arguments and start attacking the person we all know that you realize you lost and won't be able to beat his arguments so you have to resort to cheap shots, right?
fat_boy wrote:
you might get a better perspective on whats going on.
Who has a better perspective, the guy who is arguing to check sources, learned to study the environment on a scale that makes sense when dealing with it, or the guy attributing quotes to papers that never made the quotes because his favorite website told him to? You know, CSS would be proud of you.
-
No, this was a response, my debate is in the other post. Argue with that if yuo can.
William Winner wrote:
From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]."
So its an unfocused load of sentimental crap aimed at tree huggers. Yeah, thought os.
William Winner wrote:
EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale.
Oh, how cosy! What a drivvelsone description. It just reeks of sentimentalism.
William Winner wrote:
And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
No, not since you lot came along with your rose tinted simplistic agenda. Now you create a computer model built to prove a theory, run it for a few days and call the theory proved. You stopped looking at the real world decades ago. Maybee YOU should stick your head out the window rather than up your arse, you might get a better perspective on whats going on.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Hear that whistling sound? That's your credibility plummeting into an abyss. Remember what happened to the guys at the CRU? You just did something similar.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
![http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic\_monthly\_wx\_review.png\[^\]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic%5C_monthly%5C_wx%5C_review.png%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D){kind=link}