Michaelangelica Posted September 29, 2008 Report Posted September 29, 2008 O God you yanks Loove 'end of the world' scenarios.Is it because you are screwed up ChristiansorBecause you are the only ones that can really do it?
Eclipse Now Posted September 29, 2008 Report Posted September 29, 2008 The world isn't going to end... I never said that. But a Great Depression is probably likely. I'm an Aussie, I'm a Christian, but I'm not one of those "Left Behind" people who think the world's only got 7 years because the United Nations is a front for the anti-Christ, or some such rubbish. I'm a fairly boring Sydney Anglican sort, the kind that holds all the traditional conservative Christian beliefs about the Lord returning in either 5 seconds or 500 years (or 5000 for that matter!), we just don't know... and so sustainability is still an important trans-generational ethical decision. Yet M, what do you think about the 'peak everything' issue, especially 'peak metals'? This is based on USGS data and the assumption of a mere 2% growth in metals use. (That's a doubling period of 35 years, or 4 times the consumption of today's metals use in one lifetime of 70 years.)
Michaelangelica Posted September 29, 2008 Report Posted September 29, 2008 Monday 22 September 2008Professor Tim FlanneryProfessor Tim FlanneryA lot of what you are about to hear is upsetting and part of you will want to stop listening and change the channel. Enough Rope with Andrew Denton - ABC TV - 'Everyone has a story'video
Flying Binghi Posted September 29, 2008 Report Posted September 29, 2008 Eclipse Now, I actualy agree with some of the non AGW info/concerns you present. In a science forum it is probably best to do a little 'Reductio ad Adsurdum' and just stick to a particular section of the areas of your concerns. Perhapes, if you havnt already, some new threads on public transport or peak minerals may-be in order.
Eclipse Now Posted September 30, 2008 Report Posted September 30, 2008 Done! I called it New Urbanism, Sustainable Architecture for a post-oil world? Meanwhile, how about that spectroscopy and Radiative Forcing equation hey?
Michaelangelica Posted September 30, 2008 Report Posted September 30, 2008 SEE See video Professor Tim Flannery Enough Rope with Andrew Denton - ABC TV - 'Everyone has a story' A lot of what you are about to hear is upsetting and part of you will want to stop listening and change the channel. * Video (excerpt) * Audio If you want a scary bedtime story read "Climate Wars " By Gwynne Dyer (Scribe pub Oz)
Spiked Blood Posted September 30, 2008 Report Posted September 30, 2008 There's no point me replicating word for word, the debate I am having with Nappy. Cutting out all the rhetoric, and all the information that is not specific to the precise point he is sticking on. Which is 'there has been no warming since 98, and I'm the only person who says there is'. Which really bugs me, because the guy has no life, and he could easily do a little research to find out this is not true, instead of what he is obviously doing, only going to "denialist" sites and reading "denialist" claims. The big problem with this is that he is repeatedly claiming this, which means the other members of the forum will read it and believe it to be true, otherwise I would just ignore it and get on to more pertinent isues. So, I posted these links: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear – the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last, natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years are the warmest ever recorded. Met Office: Global warming goes on Met Office: Climate monitoring Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago and since the mid-1970s average global temperatures have increased at a rate of more than 0.15 °C per decade. Yet over the last 10 years temperatures have risen more slowly, causing some to claim that global warming has stopped. Here we explain why this is not the case and explains that observed changes are entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continuing long-term warming. The evidence is very clear that global temperatures are rising and that humans are largely responsible. I have also a couple of times asked him for peer reviewed literature debunking Anthropogenic Global Warming. In the process of answering the post with these links he offered some.. 'peer reviewed literature..' Jennifer Marohasy Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. I have only briefly looked at the first link, because I am in considerable pain right now and I am finding it difficult to properly concentrate when reading. Nappys response to my MET links:The specific claim I don't see challenged lately by anybody except yourself is there's been no warming since 1998. You know what though? After reading that link to The Met, I have to admit, there is somebody who kind of, almost does agree with you. You have to read carefully what he's saying though. It's deceptive. What he says is if you look at the warming within the long term warming trend you can even show temperatures rising since 1998. Let's take a look at his graph. You can see what he's actually saying there, I think. He posted one of the graphs in the link, but I can't as its been a long time since I have uploaded a picture, and I forgt the name of the site I used. I coud use some help with this, if somebody can tell me the name of some reliable free sites with which I can upload pictures. Thanks. When I saw that trend from 1998 my first reaction was, Huh? I've seen Had Crut computed with anual averages and you just can't see a trend anything like that. Look. I'll show you. That graph comes from HERE*, but it's obviously one of meteorologist Joseph D'aleo's. I defy you to show me a warming trend there. It can't be done. So my question becomes how was the guy at the met able to show one for the same years using what is supposed to be the same raw data. I puzzled over that a long time. I think I've figured it out. First of all you'll notice the graph is supposed to come from Brouhan et al 2006, but if it's 2006 how is the data for 2008 up there? It isn't just a continuation of a trend. It's the actual curve.HERE* = Jennifer Marohasy: World is Still Warming: Peter Boyer OK so I looked around for some more Had crut graphs, and I found this one... http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif Going by the title it's supposed to be using a 37 month running average. I don't know much about it. I got it from Google images. I'm just using it to illustrate what I think must have been done with the Met one. If you run a ruler along the averaged anomaly line from 1998 to 2006 you can show an upward trend. I know there's more to calculating trends than that, but that basically what the guy did with the Brouhan graph. He showed that trend from 1998 to 2006 (which is actually a buried trend from 1975), then he added the line for the following 2 years on the graph. But that trend only makes sense if you're averaging from a much colder time - say 1975 to the present. If he really wanted to show the trend from 1998 to 2008 that's what the graph would have been - 1998 to 2008. It wasn't. That was clue one something fishy was going on. OK so that tells us what the guy is really saying. He's saying if you view the short term trend from 1998 to present within the context of a longer warming trend such as the one from 1975 you can show warming. That's not the same thing as no warming since 1998. There's been no warming since 1998, and if you go from 2002 you discover this. All four plotted data sets, yes even GISS, shows a decline since 2002 ICECAP Ok, really sorry if this is posted in a confusing manner. Like I said, not being able to upload pictures makes things a lot more difficult. If somebody can just hook me up with a upload site. Please.
freeztar Posted October 1, 2008 Report Posted October 1, 2008 The easiest way to add an image is to link directly to it on the external site by right-clicking and copying the URL, then posting it here (though many people frown upon that). Another easy way is to click on the little paperclip above the reply textbox (when composing a post) and upload a file that way. It will appear as a thumbnail at the bottom of your post.
Eclipse Now Posted October 1, 2008 Report Posted October 1, 2008 "The Independent reports brand-new results of high concentrations of methane — 100x normal — above the sea surface over the Siberian continental shelf. A large number of methane plumes have been discovered bubbling up from the sea floor. This is probably due to methane clathrate, buried under the sea floor before the last ice age, breaking up as higher water temperatures melt the permafrost that had contained it."Warning: Slashdot discussion ensues with this funny one liner... So this is how the world ends. Not with a bang but with a flatulent belch of ancient methane. Slashdot | Strong Methane Emissions On the Siberian Shelf
Spiked Blood Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Did anybody read my previous post? I know there's a gazillion topics at hypography, and people usually get bored going over the same stuff and like to get into the new topics. If somebody has the time, here's the graph I posted from The Met: Here's what it was responded with: Any help would be greatly appreciated.
freeztar Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 I thought InfiniteNow already responded to this idea. The second graph you posted is suspect for a few reasons. First of all, it doesn't give a source. Where did you get it from. Second, it is only showing a decade worth of data which is hardly long enough to show a clear trend. The first graph is better in this regard, but is confusing as it is showing change relative to another range of years (they actually overlap quite a bit too). Hope that helps a bit. :)
Essay Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Hey SB! Good going with the graphics. Thanks Mods.... SB, I think the key is whether or not temperatures are directly related to CO2 concentration. Both Eclipse Now & InfiniteNow addressed the graph, and interpretation of the data; and then I built upon their comments to address the CO2/Temp. relationship. I know my writing style is very ...obtuse, (and scattered, with key points buried, etc.) perhaps; but feel free to ask a question or call me on any points. I'm sure I could write a paragraph or two explaining any one point. see: http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-78.html#post239222 "Oh yea, that came up when talking about the mechanism of CO2 heating. I think the argument was that since temperatures were no longer following CO2 increases, therefore they must be unrelated. That overlooks the complex, real-world, non-linear relationship between temperature and total energy. CO2 affects the total energy and not the temperature directly, so other parts of the system will be adjusting to the increase in total energy (from incr. CO2) without necessarily affecting the temperature. For instance, during a period where lots of ice absorbs energy (during its non-linear melting process), air temperatures may not increase (or even cool). Ever hear someone who lives in a valley?..." I'm referring, obliquely, to the Arctic here as a source of non-linear, atmospheric temperature increase. There's also the recent large increase in particulates from ~Asia, etc. (shades of the pre-70's, U.S. dirty skys) -pun intended.=== ...But I don't want to get lost in examples.Does the key point about the difference between Total Energy versus Temperature explain things?It's certainly not just common sense, right? ...bbl.Thanks,~ :)
Flying Binghi Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Whats the world coming to ? ...after reading this article by a former editor of New Scientist, the last shreds of "My belief in (AGW) Global Warming" are in tatters. Via - Yes, global warming "is just propaganda" - Belfast Today Yes, global warming "is just propaganda" by Nigel Calder: Besides being a former editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder has written three books on climate change. His latest is The Chilling Stars (Icon Books) co-authored with the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and described by The Times as 'the new totem of the climate-change sceptics'. Extract - The biggest lie of all, breathtaking in its audacity, is the insistence that mankind's misbehaviour means that global warming is getting worse. The measurements for August 2008 are just in, and they confirm the world is distinctly cooler this year than last. It's fair enough to argue about whether the Earth's temperature has stopped rising, or merely paused, or gone into reverse. But the key fact is that, despite that indisputable increase of CO2 in the air, the Earth is no warmer now than it was 12 years ago.
Zythryn Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Excellent. Could you link to his peer reviewed papers disproving the link between CO2 and climate change?What was that?? You can't??? Listen, in the most plain terms possible, no one in the AGW side of the equation is suggesting that CO2 is the ONLY driver of temperature.The global climate is incredibly complex.CO2 does absorb long wavelength radiation, leading to a 'greenhouse effect'.If you can prove that CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation, go for it, you will win a Nobel Prize.
InfiniteNow Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Spiked Blood, Try to remember that (with this issue) you are arguing for the side of truth. Humans ARE changing the climate, and in very serious ways. While others may be better debaters than us... better at spinning information and perceptions... you still hold the advantage of arguing for the side which is an accurate reflection of reality. I've been engaged in countless battles over anthropogenic global warming (and creationism/evolution for that matter), and while some of my opponents have been better debaters than me, I still ultimately won since I was arguing on the side of truth... On the side of accurate representations of reality. Keep your chin up and your spine strong. :)
freeztar Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Whats the world coming to ? ...after reading this article by a former editor of New Scientist, the last shreds of "My belief in (AGW) Global Warming" are in tatters. Via - Yes, global warming "is just propaganda" - Belfast Today Yes, global warming "is just propaganda" by Nigel Calder: Besides being a former editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder has written three books on climate change. His latest is The Chilling Stars (Icon Books) co-authored with the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and described by The Times as 'the new totem of the climate-change sceptics'. Extract - The biggest lie of all, breathtaking in its audacity, is the insistence that mankind's misbehaviour means that global warming is getting worse. The measurements for August 2008 are just in, and they confirm the world is distinctly cooler this year than last. It's fair enough to argue about whether the Earth's temperature has stopped rising, or merely paused, or gone into reverse. But the key fact is that, despite that indisputable increase of CO2 in the air, the Earth is no warmer now than it was 12 years ago. That's sad to read. I'm a big fan of Nigel Calder's book: "Einstein's Universe" http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Universe-Nigel-Calder/dp/0517385708It's unfortunate that Mr. Calder has made himself blind to the evidence of AGW. :) As Zythryn notes, this article is lacking in peer-reviewed research. The ironic part is that this article is the same type of propaganda that he is supposedly pinning on AGW and the media. :) I can only assume he was too blinded to see the contradiction, or maybe he hoped nobody would notice... Flying Binghi, I urge you to look at the actual science related to AGW. Don't listen to the media. I often see media reports that are completely overblown or do not agree with the science they are reporting. This goes for both denialists articles and AGW articles. Look at the science. Look at the writings done by scientists working on various aspects of climate. Analyze the graphs with critical thinking. That is where you will find enough data to make your own conclusion, rather than having the media make it for you. Just my 2 cents.
Essay Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Whats the world coming to ? ...after reading this article by a former editor of New Scientist, the last shreds of "My belief in (AGW) Global Warming" are in tatters. Binghi, you are too easily swayed by propagandistic techniques: Nigel has a peice at this site: CO2sceptics News Blog | Nigel Calder: Yes, global warming "is just propaganda" "Yes, you've got it. Man-made global warming is just propaganda. My father Ritchie Calder was a science writer too, but during the Second World War he played a leading part in Allied propaganda against Nazi Germany. He told me quite a lot about the tricks, employed in what was then a good cause. Now I watch them being used every day by the global wamers (sic)." ...oh, I get it; that's not a mistake, it's a new label. Good, subtle technique, Nigel; you learned well. Yes we can see these propagandistic tricks throughout out daily lives, in advertising, politics and journalism. And then Nigel continues to proffer the very same myopic arguments that we're seeing so much of in the blogosphere lately. However...Nigel does not claim to be a scientist:"It confirms that my fellow science writers have miscalculated badly." I was curious to see what science experience led to his 1962-66 editorship...and so I found this site. Now I think I know...[i'm picturing the Gumbys vs. Twits skit] ...but that's probably not fair....Is this really a ringing endorsement for the culture that brought us global warming?"My Dad's chief opponent was Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels. Among many meditations on his craft, he wrote, 'The English follow the principle that when you lie, you should lie big, and stick to it.' And of course Goebbels did the same himself...." I ask which side could deploy this "big lie?" Is it the long entrenched, old-boy network that brought us global hegemony; or is it the several decades old network of scientist that have increasingly been persuaded by the mounting accumulation of diverse evidence?=== Did you see my post #794 above? It specifically talks about this CO2 thing that both you and SB (and the rest of the blogosphere) are curious about. Thanks,~ :naughty:
Recommended Posts