-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
Good for you. You can find links on the internet. Now if you would be so kind as to show you have any familiarity AT ALL with actual Climate research, stop avoiding my question. You demonstrated an utter lack of familiarity with climate science. I pointed to posts you made which demonstrated this, such as your links to NASA and claims about their satellite date, except
1) The people behind this satellite data are first and foremost 2 "climate deniers"
2) The satellite temperature sets aren't put together by NASA
3) I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend, and you linked to NASA to support your claim that I was wrong, but NASA contradicts your view.
So again, if you claim to have ANY familiarity with the actual science behind your claims, the back up your claims here:
Point to any post where you explained the results of research studies you've read, and can cite, in your own words (not just a simple phrase/sentence, but a paragraph or several sentences) demonstrating you've read the published research, rather than whatever headlines, blogs, NOVA presentations intended for people who must depend on such sources because they aren't familiar with the science, or PR summaries. Because so far, all you've done is indicated that you have zero familiarity with the actual science and the extent of you knowledge of climate science is what you can copy off sites you get from google searches.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I don't feel the need to feel supeior I guess like you do, with the I am smarter then you attitude. You have no idea what I know and how I have learned things. Make all the accusations you want if it make you feel supeior.
" NOVA presentations intended for people who must depend on such sources because they aren't familiar with the science"
Depend? They depend on it? really? If they depend on it it must really be important.
I would say most people who watch Nova are familar with science and watch it for the new science on specific topics.
people can watch Nova who are familar with the sciences and many do, as well as Nova presents things you can't get from individual reaserch papers. Nor was this a research papers verses Nova to begin with, the actual scientists are on the show explaning their work in person and there is more you can learn from them, as well as actual satellite images and more. You have never learned anything from a science documentary?
Along with reading some the actual research papers.
This isn't an either or as you make it out to be of course.
Or frontline on some of the politics involved in the whole mess. Your also not the only one on the thread here.
Funny on another thread you posted you
" I remember watching a documentary with Clive Wearing way back in Learning and Memory (an undergraduate class)."
So you post documentaries that matter and you learn something about it? Is that hypocritical, when you didn't post the actual research paper? Then to compare Nova and Frontline to fox news and Teen magazine, shows you don't know what your talking about.
You didn't watch the frontline where you might actually learn something more, things that are not in research papers on the science of gobal warming. But feel the need to dismiss it completely, then pretend you know about it all. But above you stated you learned something from documentaries? Which is it?
Timeline - The Science And Politics Of Global Warming
Timeline - The Science And Politics Of Global Warming | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS
As for Nasa and satellite data, what does the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and information services center do?
Or the GDAAC do?
"The people behind this satellite data are first and foremost 2 "climate deniers"
Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast | Global Warming & Cloud Cover | Climate Change Skeptics | LiveScience
There not the only one's interpreting the satellite data.
where do they get the data from, especially since one works for Nasa and one use too?
Nasa interprets data from their satellites for NOAA and the department of defence. Are they the only one's, no. Other agencies have satellites and do research.
the four temperature series that are advanced from:
GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA
RSS Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.
" I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend, and you linked to NASA to support your claim that I was wrong, but NASA contradicts your view.
"NASA contradicts your view"
No it doesn't. Its just more complicated then your suggesting.
Now explain the influences of the oceans on that data?
Let me state what your saying here again.
"I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend"
Because you don't seem to understand what your talking about.
CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences 2012
"As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.
"What about the last 15 years? This claim, too, is false, in two important ways: First, it actually has warmed over the past 15 years, and second, the past 15 years are themselves among the warmest in the past 130 years."
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data - Forbes
and again
Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real 2011
Comparison of data showing decadal land-surface average world temperature changes from 15 different sources, some going back as far as 1800. (Credit: Image courtesy of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature)
Cooling the warming debate: Major new analysis confirms that global warming is real
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis
Then you posted one scientific paper trying to blame it on the solar irradiance, and I posted the rebuttle to that paper you ignored and then a new study from Nasa on the sun influence, you also downplayed.
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
NASA - Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
Jan. 19, 2012
"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."
NASA GISS: Research News: NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
'First Light' Taken by NASA's Newest CERES Instrument
NASA - 'First Light' Taken by NASA's Newest CERES Instrument
Here's what you said earlier:
You said you wanted "to discuss." You haven't. You have continually written a sentence here or there in between lots and lots of quote mining. As for me having "no idea what" what you understand, that's not entirely true either. For example, you stated:
I said it does not appear, you disagreed. I gave you temperature data, and you provided a lot more quote mining. Only when I finally provided something form a NASA webpage (the same site you kept linking to) did we settle that, in fact, you were wrong. Now, as the lack of a warming trend has been one of the most hotly discussed issues in both the public and academic arenas, if you were familiar with the science, it's hard to understand how you didn't know this.
Did you?
Well don't take my word for it:
Painted wolf is (I believe) a researcher and knows more about paleobotony and plant life (and I'm certain a good many other topics as well) than I.
I can't recall learning any science. Perhaps if I watched one about a science I know little or nothing about.
The problem with the politics issue is that it is easy for both sides to run to all sorts of new headlines and blogs and this or that scientist. I could easily find site after site of people accusing the IPCC of being a political organization designed to push AGW, that the climate scientists who are proponents of AGW are environmentalists pushing an agenda, not science, that the upper echelons of government or academic organizations like NASA, NAS, IPCC, etc., silence researchers who doubt, refuse to publish their research on political grounds, refuse funding to researchers who don't "toe the global warming party line" and so on. The problem is, there's no point. For every person who or organization which makes X claim about such and such a scientists or organization, there is another person/organization to make a counter claim asserting that the first party is funded by big oil, the right-wing, the left-wing, the environmentalists, etc.
Well considering I wasn't talking about the science, nor was that the point of watching the video, then no it wasn't hypocritical. The point of the documentary was see the people and their experience with their conditions. The material we read in class (in papers, our textbook, etc.) was much, much more thorough and technical when it came to the science. There was nothing about the science of memory we learned in the video.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/cron.html
Again, I can do the same:
IPCC's Ben Santer Admits Fraud
The Climategate Inquiries (and how they were biased/fraudulent)
Climategate Inquiries Criticized
The Global Warming Hoax
So what? There's a lot of easy quotes to mine out there. Harder to look at the research though.
Climate models, surface temperature data, cloud research, aerosal research, etc. However, the satellite temperature is from the NOAA (and uses NASA satellites) and the data sets are put together by UAH (Spencer and Christy). RSS has also done it for a while independently, and recently another researcher began to. But the official work (the place with the government contract) is UAH.
Of course they aren't. I never said they were.
Neither works for NASA. They work for UAH. And they get the data from the NOAA, which uses NASA satellites.
What other satellite data sets are you referring to? Because RSS uses the raw NOAA/Satellite data as well. They just aren't the official source for the NOAA's data sets.
GISS doesn't put together the satellite data together, and neither does the MET office's Hadley Centre. UAH is the official contracted source, but has RSS also put together an independent data set. Again, they use the same satellites.
Last edited:
It absolutely does. First, with the actual temperature data sets (surface, lower air, and satellite). Second, when they present Hanson's theory (shared by others) as to why the trend isn't there. But that doesn't mean it isn't. And I never said it wasn't complicated. This whole time that's what I've been saying about all of it: the trends, the data, the climate, and everything else. It's very, very, complicated.
What data specifically?
Rather then cherry picked quotes such as the ones you offered in rebuttal, lets look at the actual data sets put out by the Hadley center, UAH's satellite data, and GISS:
First, the Hadley center:
Oh, and please note this time that just because the last number on the x-axis is 2000, that's not when the graph ends.
Next, here's the satellite data (UAH):
Finally, here's the GISS data of the period which lacks a warming trend. Notice how they don't include a regression line. Why? Because it would show that the average temperature hasn't really changed in the past 10+ years.
You see, here's the problem with quote mining statements rather than data or research. Let's look at a table meant to show how warm the past 10+ years have been:
Look at all those record highs! But wait...a trend should be a fairly steady increase. So let's say this is accurate. 2007 is third to last, 2006 is 4th to last, 2009 is the last of the lower half. 1998 near the top, and so is 2005. In fact, three of the most recent years are in the bottom five, while 2002, 1998, and 2005 are in the top half. In other words, if this is accurate, almost all the warmest years were in the past decade, but all over the place. A trend would mean that the later years tend to be nearer the top, and the earlier years tend to be nearer the bottom. Instead, we have them all over the place. In other words, while the temperature remained high, there was no statistically significant increase (especially considering the margin or error). No trend.
I didn't ignore it. I'd already read it. I've been reading these back and forth's for years. The point I was trying to make is that there is research which continues to explain that some, most, or all of the warming is natural (and that the temperature records are higher than the actual temperatures because the stastical procedures and corrections systematically increase the AGW period up). And other research continually finds the opposite. I posted links to actual full research papers for you to read. I don't recall you doing the same. But it doesn't matter. Would you like me to post a good many more papers which indicate one or more of the following:
1) We don't know what's causing the warming
2) The warming is caused mainly by solar influences (especially GCRs)
3) The warming is the result of natural fluctuations
4) The warming is mostly natural but partly human
5) The warming is both human and natural
There is a lot of research which continues to be published casting doubt on virtually every aspect of AGW theory. And there is a lot of research which continues to support it. But to write off research because you did a quick search and found other research which disagrees is...well whatever it is it isn't an unbiased scientific approach.
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of what they were "meant" to do! The point is that, like mammals, they could not flourish under the earlier Mesozoic climate and high carbon levels. It appears that the climate cooled quite dramatically in the Cretaceous, and flowering plants of all sorts were able to flourish and overtake the ferns and conifers that were predominant in a hotter world (I never said there weren't circumstances throwing the climate out of balance -- the question is whether the total biosphere tries to respond to outside pressures and return climate to something more suitable for the majority). There are many other negative sequestration methods at work in the natural carbon cycle, and I'm not saying that angiosperms came along to save the world. But, the general, long term trend has been to reduce CO2 levels as the Sun has increased its output over time. During the last 20 million years, I understand that there have been several times when CO2 levels fell below 200 ppm., possibly as low as 180....somewhat close to what I am told is the minimum carbon level to maintain present levels of photosynthesis -- 150 ppm. The increased frequency of ice ages might raise the question of why this would be desired, but aside from our own particular wants and needs, there is a strong argument that the modern ice ages have been more ideally suited for life than the interglacial periods.
First, warmer ocean waters on the surface block the upwelling of nutrients from deeper ocean layers, reduce oxygen absorption, and lead to clear blue oceans that are the water equivalents of deserts on land. While the cold Arctic and Antarctic waters are green with algae and plankton, and support much greater densities of marine life. Even on land, the creeping glaciers of the last ice age, may have taken out most of Canada and Northern Europe, but at the same time the drop in sea levels left many shallow shelfs and banks exposed as land surface...so I would be interested if some geologist has tried to make an assessment of just how much total land area the Earth had during the last ice age.
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I can agree with most of what you say, but if we ever get beyond stepwise changes and do something to halt the path to destruction, we will need everything on the table, up for evaluation. And my discomfort with green capitalists, is that they keep trying to block out that message and insist (like Bill Clinton most recently) that capitalism can save the environment. Until proven otherwise, I maintain that our very economic system is pushing us towards destruction.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I haven't been involved in this fight, but you haven't dealt with the new ocean temp. measuring charts that are showing clear evidence of warming in the oceans....not to mention all the melting sea ice in the Arctic, which delayed the temperature rise at first.
It seems to me that the satellite data has been the least useful because it has been skewed by upper atmospheric readings which have become colder because of heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere.
And, I want an overall theory that makes sense, and can explain how rising CO2 and methane rates will NOT result in increasing temperatures. What some of the deniers hypothesize would violate the laws of physics. And, even if there was no warming, which I don't think is plausible with all of the circumstantial evidence we are being bombarded with now, there would still be the problems of rising ocean acidification and disruptions in the ocean thermohaline system. The denier or skeptic position that advocates on behalf of fossil fuels would still be illogical.
For what it's worth, I appreciated those National Geographic power point demos and videos, because the present suicidal strategy of going after the most carbon-intensive fuels will make those dire future scenarios of a 4 or 6 degree warmer world a reality in a shorter period of time.
Actually there's a lot more I haven't dealt with. But what's the point with adressing anything more with someone who doesn't want to discuss anything(just to be clear, I don't mean you)?
Actually the satellite data is the most accurate. They don't measure temperature directly, which allow non-local readings. In other words, a thermometer is sensitive to the temperature around it. However, MSUs measure temperature dependent elements (flux in the intensity of emitted radiation of oxygen), which means that they aren't sensitive to local changes but are capable of global readings in a way no other data set is. Also, AGW theory predicts that the greatest warming should occur in the lower troposphere, which only satellites and things like weather ballons are capable of meausring.
Methane is a "stronger" GHG but according to AGW it's not a big concern. CO2 is. And it isn't that they won't result in increasing temperatures (although some research suggests that the climate adjusts naturally to maintain equilibrium, which I don't find convincing). The issue is that the climate is dominated much more by water vapor and clouds. However, AGW predicts that the increases in CO2 cause changes in these which causes dangerous warming. In other words, nobody thinks that the direct effect of CO2 as a GHG is a big deal. It's what CO2 will do to other atmospheric elements (water vapor) which are much more primary when it comes to global temperature. However, the reason for positing these positive feedback mechanisms is mainly because our models can't account for the warming without them.
Think of it this way. Let's say I can model the temperature with a very simple equation: T(x)= ax. I want to stress that this is completely inaccurate an is for demonstration purposes only (kids, don't try this at home. Go to a neighbors house. It's much safer there). Here, temperature, or T, is a function dependent on CO2 (the x). The a is the slope, representing the feedback mechanisms. The lower a is, the lower the slope (or the increase in temperature which coincides with increases in CO2). If a is one, then we get a flat line and no increase (which isn't accurate, but again this is just for demonstration). If a is much higher, then the temperature increases much more as CO2 increases.
In reality, CO2 increases the temperature by itself. However, it doesn't increase it in any amount we're really worried about. The worry is that a, or the feedback parameter. In the real models, which are differential equations, there is something like that a as well. If we take it out, then we can't get our models to show the warming we know happened from the temperature records.
What some researchers suggest is that in reality a number of other things account for the additional increase, and the feedback parameter is small or even negative. The increase can by accounted for by changes in the ozone or cloud cover by GCRs, or by natural climate oscillations, or the temperature sets are inaccurate and overestimate the actual rise in temperature, and so on. Basically, there are other hypothesized explanations which, if accurate, reduce or even rid us of the need for a feedback parameter. Other models explain the warming without it (or with it much reduced) by factoring in something like the effect of GCRs. The piont is, it's perfectly (on the surface) plausible that the increase we see is not do to CO2 without a hypothesis which would
The question is whether any of these other explanations are accurate.
Quite true. But there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between the amount of CO2 we emit and the amount in the atmosphere. At times when CO2 emissions have increased, the content hasn't. We don't fully understand the CO2 cycle, from absorbtion to it's role in temperature.
Again, though, it is very important to understand that none of the models predict this increase because of the GHG role of CO2. That's rather small. The reason for those 4 to 6 degree increases are because of the feedback parameter.
Last edited:
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Can the results of this poll determine reality? I refrain from voting until I contemplate which reality I want - unless I've already voted and forgotten about it. Then I'll just prepare as best I can for the upcoming unfolding undoing. That didn't make sense.
Rather poetic though. That's good enough for me. Maybe better.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Huh. I'll take it.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually mammals flourished just fine during the Mesozoic... in fact they had greater overall diversity before the end of Cretaceous than after. Some even hunted small dinosaurs.
Today we only have three orders of mammals left (one of which only has three species left), there were at least five during the time of the dinosaurs.
It's a common misconception that mammals were stuck in some sort of limbo until the dinosaurs died out.
Again, the majority of species were thriving... there hadn't been as much diversity among living things since the great Permian die off.
As for ferns and conifers not liking the cold... guess what thrives in the coldest parts of the modern world. (hint: christmas trees don't have flowers)
However, life was thriving in the warmer higher CO2 world for hundreds of millions of years.
If you believe that the biosphere is trying to return to something more stable for the majority than increasing CO2 is the way to go. The majority of life on the planet prefers warmer temperatures. Only the minority of mammals prefer it cold.
Doubtful... there have been plenty of glacial periods before those during the reign of mammals.
Warmer surface waters are also needed to drive the global oceanic currents. The fact that the poles get 24 hour sunlight makes them green with algae and plankton, not the cold.
The greatest diversity of life in the ocean is found in shallow warm water coral reefs. Cold waters are great for bringing up nutrients, but the open oceans are deserts compared to places like the Great Barrier Reef.
Again, the warmest period in Earths history was in the Eocene... well after the dinosaurs and well after the angiosperms arrived. Most of the warm and cold cycles are driven by the fact that the Earth wobbles in it's orbit, not because of anything done by living things.
wa:do
I've spent a lot of time on proxy records used in reconstructions of the temperature for the past several thousand years, but far less on those which reconstruct temperatures for the past tens of millions of years (or more). Could you recommend any sources? Thanks
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
There are quite a few proxies from Foram ranges, the formation of calcium carbonate shells in marine invertebrates, the spread of tropical plants into northern lattitudes and stable isotope ratios.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/nature04668.html
The Paleocene-Eocene benthic foraminiferal extinction and stable isotope anomalies
http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/tbralower/Bralower2002.pdf
High-resolution records of the late Paleocene thermal maximum and circum-Caribbean volcanism: Is there a causal link?
Here is a fun proxy... the number of teeth on a deciduous trees leaves is a very good indication of temperature.
Dana Royer
These should be a good start. There is a lot of research into this subject.
If you want more you can find hundreds of papers on the subject by using Google Scholar... I would suggest searching for something like "PETM" (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). You can also find similar work done on other time periods to determine the temperature.
wa:do
Thanks. Also, I'm not limited to google scholar. I have access to most of the academic databases (science direct, academic search premier, academic files, jstor, etc.). I'll check out the links. I appreciate the help.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
cool, similar searches at those will bring up even more. One nice thing about scholar though is that it also pulls links to abstracts from jstor and the like. Obviously having access to jstor means you will then get the full paper.
I tend to use scholar as a grand sweep and then do refined searches through jstor and others. I love using the papers cited/papers citing links to follow research trends.
wa:do
I do the same. For one thing, The more papers I find available in one database thanks to a scholar search, the more I know that's a good one to search.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
The chart posted of the lower atmophere satellite readings being coller is explain in the links.
Again, I took climitology and meterology in college and know how very complex the systems are to begin with, but posting climite varations year to year for different reasons, such as La Niña which cools the oceans or El Niño which warms them and understanding the effects on the upper atmophere. AS well as the entire temp of the earth is warming. But it goes up and down due to varations in the system, even though the trend is warming.
Which also has to do with
"dealt with the new ocean temp. measuring charts that are showing clear evidence of warming in the oceans....not to mention all the melting sea ice in the Arctic, which delayed the temperature rise at first. "
The melting sea ice in the Arctic, Antartic and Greenland and even glaciers will excellerate the warming.
One reason why the Russians and Americans are so keen to get up their and stake claims and to drill and have sea lanes available where they could not before.
Not to mention acidity of the oceans either as it absorbs gasses.
2C warming goal now 'optimistic' - French scientists
2C warming goal now 'optimistic' - French scientists - Yahoo! News
Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels
Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels - Yahoo! News
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
calcium carbonate shells
Unprecedented, Man-made Trends in Oceans Acidity
Honolulu, January 22, 2012
Recent carbon dioxide emissions have pushed the level of seawater acidity far above the range of the natural variability that existed for thousands of years and are affecting the calcification rates of shell-forming organism, according to a study of an international team of scientists led by IPRC's Tobias Friedrich and Axel Timmermann. Their study appears in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change. For [youtube]qaOwUxrlyvw[/youtube]
animation click here.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Ocean Acidification: A Risky Shell Game
How will climate change affect the shells and skeletons of sea life?
WHOI : Oceanus : Ocean Acidification: A Risky Shell Game
Unprecedented, Man-made Trends in Oceans Acidity
Honolulu, January 22, 2012
Recent carbon dioxide emissions have pushed the level of seawater acidity far above the range of the natural variability that existed for thousands of years and are affecting the calcification rates of shell-forming organism, according to a study of an international team of scientists led by IPRC's Tobias Friedrich and Axel Timmermann. Their study appears in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change. For [youtube]qaOwUxrlyvw[/youtube]
animation click here.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Ocean Acidification: A Risky Shell Game
How will climate change affect the shells and skeletons of sea life?
WHOI : Oceanus : Ocean Acidification: A Risky Shell Game