Global Warming Resources
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
*Ignoring climate change, what other effects is pollution leading to (e.g., increased asthma rates)?
I've already found a problem with your research. CO2 is not poisonous, and it does not inflame the lungs.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Like I said, I'm not interested in your opinion... I only want resources. And pollution != CO2 (there are various forms of pollution). These are just my preliminary notes (note my question is under my "Research" heading... it was a question I posed to myself so that I may answer it later). If you have any real suggestions for resources to help me research global warming, then I'd love to hear them.
-
Like I said, I'm not interested in your opinion... I only want resources. And pollution != CO2 (there are various forms of pollution). These are just my preliminary notes (note my question is under my "Research" heading... it was a question I posed to myself so that I may answer it later). If you have any real suggestions for resources to help me research global warming, then I'd love to hear them.
Don't waste your time. Its a dead subject riddled with fraud and misinformation.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
FYI, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on global warming. I've heard widely varying opinions from people I respect more than any of you (because I know them personally, not because I don't respect any of you). I've heard of epic flame wars that have occurred over this subject and I don't want to ignite one (and if I do I'm certainly not going to participate in it). And on that warm fuzzy note, on to my real post... I've done reports on GW while in school and I've done a small amount of Googling on the topic, but the sides involved in this topic are so charged that it's hard to wade through all the crap and misinformation out there. A classic example of this is the famous John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) letter that basically says GW is a scam. Many of the replies to his letter attack the man rather than his arguments (although many of his arguments are hard to attack because they're so non-specific). I want to avoid all that nonsense. On to what I really want... I would like some resources so I can learn more about the specifics of GW. The history of how it came to be, surveys of scientists who back the theory (or refute it), the most recent evidence including real data and an analysis, etc. I'm not interested in why such and such a party may have manufactured evidence or what have you; I want the facts so that I can make an informed analysis myself. Any of you have suggestions for books, articles, downloadable data, authoratative websites, and so on that I could use to research GW? Like I said, I've seen a few such resources myself, but my mind is still not made up, so I need something more.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I want the facts so that I can make an informed analysis myself.
Here's the problem with that, do you have a degree or experience in anything even remotely involved in climatology? The stuff is dense, and the best you're going to get is a 'most likely' for either side. The rough explanation I've managed is two fold, the supporters focus on the absolutely worse potential outcomes(which are generally localized at any given time) where as those who oppose it look at the average number and shrug when it doesn't look like much, the other half is it could go quite a few different ways depending on what gets hit first. If enough arctic freshwater ice melts, Europe could look like Siberia fairly quickly. Emphasis on both could and quickly. It's not a sure thing, but it would be really, really bad if it worked out the way they're looking at. Or if everything goes haywire most of the coastal and equatorial regions are looking at trouble and I'm looking at a balmy island of my own. So I'm not terribly sure which side of this I should sit on, it's certainly possible that we're impacting it, but direct results by the CO2 aren't the immediate issue, it's what that small increase in heat can do to someplace else, and what that change can do to the rest of the world or what that increase can do to variability in a given weather pattern. We've figured a good number of patterns which make up the earth's climate, what exactly would happen if we managed to disrupt them? Probably something bad. That's about as good as it gets unless you're going to be doing further research in the field.
-
FYI, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on global warming. I've heard widely varying opinions from people I respect more than any of you (because I know them personally, not because I don't respect any of you). I've heard of epic flame wars that have occurred over this subject and I don't want to ignite one (and if I do I'm certainly not going to participate in it). And on that warm fuzzy note, on to my real post... I've done reports on GW while in school and I've done a small amount of Googling on the topic, but the sides involved in this topic are so charged that it's hard to wade through all the crap and misinformation out there. A classic example of this is the famous John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) letter that basically says GW is a scam. Many of the replies to his letter attack the man rather than his arguments (although many of his arguments are hard to attack because they're so non-specific). I want to avoid all that nonsense. On to what I really want... I would like some resources so I can learn more about the specifics of GW. The history of how it came to be, surveys of scientists who back the theory (or refute it), the most recent evidence including real data and an analysis, etc. I'm not interested in why such and such a party may have manufactured evidence or what have you; I want the facts so that I can make an informed analysis myself. Any of you have suggestions for books, articles, downloadable data, authoratative websites, and so on that I could use to research GW? Like I said, I've seen a few such resources myself, but my mind is still not made up, so I need something more.
You might want some references on the Pacific decadal oscillation[^] and El Nino[^]. I hear that they've got some impact on global climate patterns. There's also some work of interest on the effects of increased CO2 on a plant's stomatal size and density; that might go some way towards mitigating any global warming. The heat retention capabilities of greenhouse gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane) would be worth a look into, as well as information about how they release that heat. There's also black body radiation and solar cycles. I realise that this is probably moving closer towards opinion, but the University of Anglia's emails might provide some insights into the attitudes of the scientists behind it. Beyond that, I would actually take a portion of CaptainSeeSharp's post seriously. Look at the IPCC reports, find the sources, examine the writers' possible biases, compare it to the data. That's a fairly monumental task; I'd love to help some more, but don't have the time. Good luck.
OSDev :)
-
FYI, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on global warming. I've heard widely varying opinions from people I respect more than any of you (because I know them personally, not because I don't respect any of you). I've heard of epic flame wars that have occurred over this subject and I don't want to ignite one (and if I do I'm certainly not going to participate in it). And on that warm fuzzy note, on to my real post... I've done reports on GW while in school and I've done a small amount of Googling on the topic, but the sides involved in this topic are so charged that it's hard to wade through all the crap and misinformation out there. A classic example of this is the famous John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) letter that basically says GW is a scam. Many of the replies to his letter attack the man rather than his arguments (although many of his arguments are hard to attack because they're so non-specific). I want to avoid all that nonsense. On to what I really want... I would like some resources so I can learn more about the specifics of GW. The history of how it came to be, surveys of scientists who back the theory (or refute it), the most recent evidence including real data and an analysis, etc. I'm not interested in why such and such a party may have manufactured evidence or what have you; I want the facts so that I can make an informed analysis myself. Any of you have suggestions for books, articles, downloadable data, authoratative websites, and so on that I could use to research GW? Like I said, I've seen a few such resources myself, but my mind is still not made up, so I need something more.
The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming is a very good book. Be warned, having read it, I now find that everyone I try to talk to about AGW, hates me in the end. That's the main reason I don't post in Oakman's little forum anymore. If you get to the point of deciding it's all a scam and attacking anyone who believes there's even a grain of truth to it, you should head over there, those folks have used that forum for a love-in for months now.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming is a very good book. Be warned, having read it, I now find that everyone I try to talk to about AGW, hates me in the end. That's the main reason I don't post in Oakman's little forum anymore. If you get to the point of deciding it's all a scam and attacking anyone who believes there's even a grain of truth to it, you should head over there, those folks have used that forum for a love-in for months now.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming
Thanks, it's on its way from Amazon now.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming
Thanks, it's on its way from Amazon now.
He wrote another book, called the skeptical environmentalist, which shows the ways that the environmental lobby deliberately exaggerates all sorts of issues, to create funding.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming is a very good book. Be warned, having read it, I now find that everyone I try to talk to about AGW, hates me in the end. That's the main reason I don't post in Oakman's little forum anymore. If you get to the point of deciding it's all a scam and attacking anyone who believes there's even a grain of truth to it, you should head over there, those folks have used that forum for a love-in for months now.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Thats not so Christian, and in fact I have Lombergs other book. As for your 'grain of truth', well the truth isnt negotiable. Either CO2 is having a noticible/measurable effect on clmate or it isnt. If it isnt then it doesnt relly matter whether CO2 can absorb IR radiation, because that isnt the point. If it does then we can decide how much and whether we should do someting abourt it (a bit of warmingn could well be a good thing). But, I have to say that looking at past data there is no evidence that CO2 is making any difference to the climate at all. The reason we dislike you when you debate about GW is that you wont hold a consistent argument, and dont respond when evidence is provided. At the very least if someone, on request, has provided evidnce that backs up theior argument you can reply with #OK< you win' or 'interesting, let me think about that'. But you just argue aggressively, and personally. Calling it a love-in forum is just another example of your insults.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
FYI, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on global warming. I've heard widely varying opinions from people I respect more than any of you (because I know them personally, not because I don't respect any of you). I've heard of epic flame wars that have occurred over this subject and I don't want to ignite one (and if I do I'm certainly not going to participate in it). And on that warm fuzzy note, on to my real post... I've done reports on GW while in school and I've done a small amount of Googling on the topic, but the sides involved in this topic are so charged that it's hard to wade through all the crap and misinformation out there. A classic example of this is the famous John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) letter that basically says GW is a scam. Many of the replies to his letter attack the man rather than his arguments (although many of his arguments are hard to attack because they're so non-specific). I want to avoid all that nonsense. On to what I really want... I would like some resources so I can learn more about the specifics of GW. The history of how it came to be, surveys of scientists who back the theory (or refute it), the most recent evidence including real data and an analysis, etc. I'm not interested in why such and such a party may have manufactured evidence or what have you; I want the facts so that I can make an informed analysis myself. Any of you have suggestions for books, articles, downloadable data, authoratative websites, and so on that I could use to research GW? Like I said, I've seen a few such resources myself, but my mind is still not made up, so I need something more.
OK, key points are: A) Is it warming? 1) Sea ice extent isnt changing. Its shrinking in the arctic and growing in the antarctic. 2) 90% less stations are used today than in the 80s by GISS and NCDC to prepare their temperature data sets. 3) Data manipulation carried out at CRU. B) Is that warming/extra CO2 dangerous? 1) Vostock and greenland ice core data. Temperature were a lot higher a few thousand years ago. Yet we didnt go through a 'tipping point'. 2) CO2 used as fertilizer for crop production. 3) Non peer reviewed hearsay used by IPCC stating Glaciers are melting, the amazon is shrinking, and weather disasters are becoming more common. D) Is CO2 creating warming? 1) Historic temperature data. Post war cooling, CO2 rising. 2) Historic temperature data, Vostock ice core. Temperature increases precede CO2 increases by approx 800 years. E) Is any warming natural? 1) Documented 17th century glacer advance in Europe. Glaciers now retreating. 2) Greenland, Arctic, US, Canada, Scandaniavia, was warmer in the 1930's as today. alt.global_warming is a lively forum for getting links and info on the latest developements.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK, key points are: A) Is it warming? 1) Sea ice extent isnt changing. Its shrinking in the arctic and growing in the antarctic. 2) 90% less stations are used today than in the 80s by GISS and NCDC to prepare their temperature data sets. 3) Data manipulation carried out at CRU. B) Is that warming/extra CO2 dangerous? 1) Vostock and greenland ice core data. Temperature were a lot higher a few thousand years ago. Yet we didnt go through a 'tipping point'. 2) CO2 used as fertilizer for crop production. 3) Non peer reviewed hearsay used by IPCC stating Glaciers are melting, the amazon is shrinking, and weather disasters are becoming more common. D) Is CO2 creating warming? 1) Historic temperature data. Post war cooling, CO2 rising. 2) Historic temperature data, Vostock ice core. Temperature increases precede CO2 increases by approx 800 years. E) Is any warming natural? 1) Documented 17th century glacer advance in Europe. Glaciers now retreating. 2) Greenland, Arctic, US, Canada, Scandaniavia, was warmer in the 1930's as today. alt.global_warming is a lively forum for getting links and info on the latest developements.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
alt.global_warming is a lively forum for getting links and info on the latest developements
Thanks. I have added some of your points to my wiki page for further research.
-
He wrote another book, called the skeptical environmentalist, which shows the ways that the environmental lobby deliberately exaggerates all sorts of issues, to create funding.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'm guessing most every group with an agenda does that. But thanks for the tip.
-
fat_boy wrote:
alt.global_warming is a lively forum for getting links and info on the latest developements
Thanks. I have added some of your points to my wiki page for further research.
-
Sorry, private wiki between me and 2 friends.