Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
A twist to the Global Warming Debate
Old 03-22-2008, 12:32 PM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 347
A twist to the Global Warming Debate

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

Found this article on the Drudge report this morning. Should add some more insight to the global warming/cooling debate. Enjoy the read
__________________

__________________
USCG regulations say you have to go out. They don't say anything about coming back.
USK Coastie is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-22-2008, 02:07 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Thanks for the link.
It reminded me of an astrophyisist that said you could make a model that shows that the earth is the center of the universe but as you add more and more of what we know the explanation to keep the earth in the center just becomes too unwheeldy. This is what was happening just before Conpernicus.

I liked this paragraph
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
__________________

__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 03:00 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Two words: Cherry pick

More words: She needs to keep up on her research. But I guess that would contradict her "ungrounded certainty." A good start is the recent CRU data. The GISS data works as well.
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 03:11 PM   #4
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 899
This doesn't seem to provide any new info as far as I can tell.

We know that in the past the earth has been both colder and hotter than it is now. That implies that there are other effects that are of the same order or greater than the current CO2 effect. These effects also operate on different time scales. I think the data in the link just supports that.

But that doesn't mean that we don't need to be concerned with CO2 induced climate change.

MB
__________________
mb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:38 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DblDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,224
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:



Think I'll go with the internationally recognized GISS data for now rather then an interview in an Australian newspaper...

DD
__________________
DblDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 11:11 PM   #6
Full time employment: Posting here.
UncleHoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblDoc View Post
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:



Think I'll go with the internationally recognized GISS data for now rather then an interview in an Australian newspaper...

DD
Interesting..... I wonder what we did to cause the leveling of global temperatures from the mid 40's to the late 70's? One would think with industrial production increasing after WWII the temperature would have steadily increased. I can only think of one possible change that may have had an effect.
__________________
UncleHoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 02:17 AM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
Insanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 128
OK, so the Australian Institute of Public Affairs -- a conservative organization favoring free trade and relaxed regulation -- finds a scientist to present a paper.

Isn't it amazing that the presentation was overwhelmingly anti-regulation and pro-free-trade? Like, gosh, I always go to a Catholic Church to get well-researched and carefully documented information on the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths, don't you?
__________________
Insanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 06:56 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insanity View Post
OK, so the Australian Institute of Public Affairs -- a conservative organization favoring free trade and relaxed regulation -- finds a scientist to present a paper.
Actually not too long ago a site was linked that contained more resources than can be read in a week about how global warming should not be a real concern and is very over blown by most sources. Many of the articles listed were from peer reviewed sources. Almost all of the authors were scientists of note in their fields. Of course on this site is was dismissed as not being accurate and that the 50 some odd scientists on the IPCC were correct not the hundreds of scientists listed disputing global warming.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 08:59 AM   #9
Recycles dryer sheets
Rivrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bloomington
Posts: 127
Read an article this week that said that deep ocean tempuratures have cooled slightly in the last few years. It wasn't what they were expecting to find. The scientist are trying to figure out why the measurements aren't matching the computer models.

I don't pretend to know whether climate change is man made or what the results are going to be. Seems to be evidence both ways.

I do become a little bothered when I hear people say the science is settled and the doubters should shut up. Science depends on open and often heated debate. Let everyone present their case and see what happens.
__________________
Relax your mind.
Rivrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 09:55 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insanity View Post
OK, so the Australian Institute of Public Affairs -- a conservative organization favoring free trade and relaxed regulation -- finds a scientist to present a paper.

Isn't it amazing that the presentation was overwhelmingly anti-regulation and pro-free-trade? Like, gosh, I always go to a Catholic Church to get well-researched and carefully documented information on the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths, don't you?
Do we discount liberal media outlets information also?

Yes - I went to Catholic grammer, high and university. In all of them I had to take at least one semester of studying other religions. All very well presented.

Let's keep an open mind about the global warming issue. It is extreamly complex.

Great paragraph that was omited.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 10:49 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivrider View Post

I don't pretend to know whether climate change is man made or what the results are going to be. Seems to be evidence both ways.

I do become a little bothered when I hear people say the science is settled and the doubters should shut up. Science depends on open and often heated debate. Let everyone present their case and see what happens.
I like to listen to the Science Friday Podcasts. The usual host, Ira Flatow is really on the 'global warming is a threat' bandwagon. He has had a number of guests discuss recent weather trends, and he always sounds like he is just on the edge of his seat waiting for the guest to blame it all on global warming. When they don't, he tries to lead them, but they don't follow. Then he outright asks, 'This is all related to Global Warming, isn't it?' - and they invariably say 'No, there's really nothing to indicate that', and he quickly changes the subject.

He never learns.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 01:02 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DblDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivrider View Post
Read an article this week that said that deep ocean tempuratures have cooled slightly in the last few years. It wasn't what they were expecting to find. The scientist are trying to figure out why the measurements aren't matching the computer models.

I don't pretend to know whether climate change is man made or what the results are going to be. Seems to be evidence both ways.

I do become a little bothered when I hear people say the science is settled and the doubters should shut up. Science depends on open and often heated debate. Let everyone present their case and see what happens.
As a recovering scientist (not in climatology) A few comments,

1) The "science" is never settled and subject to change without notice if new convincing evidence is found that changes our understanding of how our world works. Climatology is a tough science to study - how do you set up experiments in world climate? Your only testable approach is to create models and hope they then predict the outcome when parameters change naturally. If the prediction is false you go back and rework the model.

2) That global warming is occuring is fact (see above graph). Is it due to natural fluctuations that would occur without human industry or is mankind contributing to it? The preponderance of evidence suggests the latter is the case. Is it the end of our world as we know it if we don't fix it? There is only one way to find out - continue as we are and see what happens. Anyone want to take the risk?

Personally, I believe we should be decreasing our footprint (CO2 and other) on our planet anyways or we leave the mess(es) for future generations to live with and clean up.

DD
__________________
DblDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 01:09 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblDoc View Post
2) That global warming is occuring is fact (see above graph). Is it due to natural fluctuations that would occur without human industry or is mankind contributing to it? The preponderance of evidence suggests the latter is the case. Is it the end of our world as we know it if we don't fix it? There is only one way to find out - continue as we are and see what happens. Anyone want to take the risk?
The graph does not prove global warming is a fact. It shows that over a 120 year period the temp went up .8 of a degree. It is not predictive. what would it show over a longer period of time. How does the technology used to measure temperature affect the readings over the past 120 years.

If you were to include world temperatures from 1880 to 2008 the temp change would be less than the .8 of a degree change.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 01:47 PM   #14
Full time employment: Posting here.
UncleHoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus
Posts: 769
Something I haven't heard discussed before.

Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
__________________
UncleHoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 02:17 PM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 899
What DblDoc said.

With regard to the science you have to let the peer review process continue.

With regard to policy I think that we need a policy to reduce our carbon footprint because there are some many benefits for doing so and so many risks for not doing it.

MB
__________________
mb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 03:05 PM   #16
Recycles dryer sheets
Insanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 128
[quote=dex;632745]Yes - I went to Catholic grammer, high and university. In all of them I had to take at least one semester of studying other religions. All very well presented.[quote]

Now you mention it, I've heard that from other Catholics and "recovering Catholics" as well. I guess I should have chosen Pat Robertson's 700 Club; when I've gone channel surfing and landed on a 700 Club broadcast I've heard them refer to non-Christian religion as "devil worship."

Quote:
Let's keep an open mind about the global warming issue. It is extreamly complex.
I absolutely agree, but I would much rather err on the side of caution than ignore the now-dominant majority scientific opinion that global warming is a threat.

Think about it this way: engineers design systems with a "safety factor" in mind, meaning they design their system so that when the system is built with components where their performance under load is known, it has additional capacity beyond what their final product is rated for. That way if a few less-than-ideal (or worn by use) components slip in, their product can still be operated safely.

Safety factors vary by quite a bit. A vacuum cleaner motor may be rated at one horsepower but actually deliver slightly less on standard household power, and that's not surprising. No one's ever been killed by an under-powered vacuum cleaner (that I know of).

The maximum load capacity on a truck, on the other hand, usually has substantial safety factor built into it. That way they can be sure the product will be safe if a few components are less-than-perfect or experience wear as the product ages. You can see that safety factor in the small SUV market, in the Ford Explorer, which was a safe vehicle when the tires were properly inflated and loaded within stated limits, but when the tires were under-inflated and the vehicle loaded up with family and luggage, exceeding the safe loading factor by 25% or more sometimes it would roll over and kill people.

The point is that, where life and limb is involved, engineers act more conservatively to make sure their product is operated w

Back to the environment. What we don't know is what our planet's carrying capacity is, but there's increasing concern that we've surpassed our are very close to surpassing the planet's ability to process our carbon output.

Doesn't it make sense to take an engineer's approach, use conservative estimates of what our planet's carbon-carrying capacity is, then add a safety factor before we have a planetary roll-over that kills all or many of the passengers?
__________________
Insanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 03:51 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insanity View Post
I absolutely agree, but I would much rather err on the side of caution than ignore the now-dominant majority scientific opinion that global warming is a threat.
Except that I don't think we actually have a dominant majority scientific opinion. We have a vocal opinion, though.

It's not enough to say that GW is a threat. To decide a course of action we also would need to define just how much impact we can have on it, which course to follow, and what the costs would be. Factor in the costs of adaptation with/without those changes.

Some models indicate that some areas would benefit from global warming. So who decides? Remember that population densities are much higher around the equator than they are around the arctic circle. GW isn't all bad.

Quote:
Doesn't it make sense to take an engineer's approach, use conservative estimates of what our planet's carbon-carrying capacity is, then add a safety factor before we have a planetary roll-over that kills all or many of the passengers?
It's not so easy to decide what safety factor to use, when you are unlikely to get people to agree on the above issues. While the IPCC is probably the best we have, there are questions about it's validity. Some members resigned over what they saw as unscientific approaches and political agendas. IIRC, many of the members are not scientists at all, but govt representatives.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 04:33 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
The graph does not prove global warming is a fact.
So we have satellite measurements, both in the lower and upper troposphere (including the MSU satellite); weather balloons; boreholes; glacial melt; declining Arctic ice; sea level rise; rising ocean temperatures; and of course land measurements, ALL indicating rising global temperatures, and you claim the temperature isn't rising.

Fair enough, as long as you can contradict all of those sources. Go for it.

Apologies: You said the graph, specifically. It does in fact show that the temperature has risen since 1880. We can use boreholes to look back farther.

Borehole Data
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 11:22 AM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 347
None can prove that global warming is a result of man made causes. It could be from increased solar activity i.e. the melting of the polar ice caps on mars. If and its a big if that we are in a warming period that will be long lasting there is no conclusive (backed by a working climate model for man made CO2 not just naturally occurring CO2) study which proves CO2 is the causative agent.
__________________
USCG regulations say you have to go out. They don't say anything about coming back.
USK Coastie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 11:36 AM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by USK Coastie View Post
None can prove that global warming is a result of man made causes. It could be from increased solar activity i.e. the melting of the polar ice caps on mars. If and its a big if that we are in a warming period that will be long lasting there is no conclusive (backed by a working climate model for man made CO2 not just naturally occurring CO2) study which proves CO2 is the causative agent.
There has been no increased solar activity since the late 70s. At least according to satellites (when they began measuring) and the World Radiation Center. The temperature has increased since then.

welcome to pmodwrc


Science does not prove anything. There are only theories and evidence to back the theories. The models agree with the AGW theory.
__________________

__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saturnian Global Warming RetireeRobert Other topics 4 01-06-2008 04:28 PM
Global Warming on 20/20 lets-retire Other topics 17 10-22-2007 10:58 AM
Global Warming Poll TromboneAl Other topics 113 08-05-2007 01:31 PM
Global warming wipeout REWahoo Other topics 22 04-25-2007 04:13 PM
A New Global Warming Strategy marty Other topics 3 02-13-2007 08:54 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:56 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.