Global Warming

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

Originally Posted by jbess

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

Sound bites like this are part of the problem. There is plenty of mis-information around global warming. Now that it is becoming a political issue, the spin doctors are hard at work for political gain. The truth is no longer important.

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Much like the speed limit discussion, I fear that the spin doctors will use mis-information as a control tactic, yet focus on new rules that have no impact on the real issue.

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Just to clearify, I am not of the party that believes the elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004. I was mearly agreeing to the fact that there is MUCH more interest in silly things like American Idol contests than things that really matter. I don't believe it is spin, but fact, that this country has taken a turn for the worst. Case in point, that the mere fact that there is legislation taking place for speed limits on the lake because of the lack of personal responsability is just more proof.

Joe

[Airwaves]

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt.

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

Now all those scientists can get on with the really important questions of the day....like "do you want fries with that"? and "Who is the next American Idol"?

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

No, they're not all wrong. Many climate scientists disagree with them, some because the methodolgy used is sloppy or suspect, as are some of their motives.

Earlier you asked me if I was a scientist. No, I am not. I am an engineer with a Masters in Physics, one used to dealing with data, using it to design, build, test, and if need be, redesign, rebuild, and retest advanced electronic and optical instruments. I understand scientific method: observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena; formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation; use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. I use it, or a variation of it, when delving into new territory when developing new instruments using bleeding edge technologies or working with PhDs to advance our understanding of optical phenomena.


I understand the process of peer review, which means to have the theory one has put forward reviewed by one's peers, both those that agree and disagree with it. If it is reviewed only by those who agree with it, then the review is suspect. It may cause a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop, blocking out all opinions or data that disagree with the theorem, particularly those that show the theory to be flawed. It is this problem that I see with the many proponents of anthropogenic global climate change. It is the problem with the National Academy of Sciences, a body that is supposed to be apolitical and open minded. It hasn't been open minded since the 70's and is less so today. It has become far too political to be considered unbiased.


In my previous post I mentioned the Mann “hockey stick” graph, the one that shows a marked increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. It was used by the NAS as one of the proofs that human-caused global warming was indeed happening. But that graph has been debunked as being based upon questionable data, has not undergone true peer review, and neither has the algorithm used to generate the graph. For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf



Other theories with a good deal of verifiable data that point to other causes of global climate change have been ignored out of hand. One such has been postulated by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute. Svensmark theorizes that the sun's output is the major driver of climate change throughout history, barring such things as volcanic eruptions and extraterrestrial events (asteroid strikes). He backs it up using carbon dating techniques on layers of soils, peat, and other organic layers in clay and sedimentary rock to determine the solar output throughout the past millennia: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html



Others have checked his data, including some of his skeptics, and so far no one has been able to prove his theory wrong. Yet others have gone beyond Svensmark's initial work and looked back a number of millennia and still his theory holds up.


The one thing I have learned over the years is that just because the media splashes theories of global warming across the pages/TV screens/computer displays doesn't mean they're valid. All theories should be taken with a large grain of salt until others have had a chance to dig deep and prove or disprove them. Anthropogenic global warming is one of those that should be looked at with skeptical eye. There are still too many unanswered questions, too many flawed computer models that are being used to extrapolate what Earth's climate will be like over the next 100 years. Basing environmental policies upon a problem that may not even exist is foolish at best and extremely dangerous at worst.

[Airwaves]

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

Believe it or not, many scientists do have an agenda. It's called "funding". If you think that it is merely altruism that drives scientists, then you are sadly mistaken. It is funding. Funding is what enables scientists to do their research. Altrusim does not. Global warming is the research subject du jour, garnering much of the interest and a lot of funding.

And most scientists do not agree with the results of the research, at least when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Only the most vocal and politically correct scientists appear to agree. Most of those who disagree rarely get the media play, or are derided as crackpots, or seem to have their funding slashed.

Am I a cynic when it comes to this partcular subject? You betcha. I've seen too much of what I've described here in the halls of academia, government, and in the corporate world. I speak from experience, not ideology.

[Airwaves]

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

[Great Idea]

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

[Weekend Pundit]

Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed.

To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect.

Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.

[Great Idea]

BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions.

Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY.

Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.

[SIKSUKR]

I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society.

[ApS]

Slowly and imperceptably: There will be more algae and milfoil growth, more exotic plants and creatures, water temperatures will creep upwards and more boaters, tourists, and swimmers will cavort in its warmer waters. Residents will add air conditioners to their homes, camps, and trucks.

It also appears that those who reject Global Warming are "invested" in the belief that it's not happening; for example, I've never owned a car, boat, or anything with more than an economical four cylinder engine. I have no trouble realizing that the world is a warmer place.

On the other hand, a respondant with one or more road vehicles with V-8s (or greater) and/or with boats with 1 (2, or even 3) V-8 engines are heavily invested in the belief that Global Warming must not affect their chosen life style pursuit, and therefore a carefully-considered response to the concept will be clouded.

More Reading:
Here's a piece on Greenland's icecap: While it's written sensationally for this particular newspaper's subscribers (i.e., sea levels to rise 21 feet, but doesn't state that ALL of Greenland's ice must melt for that to happen), it does give incite into the personal effort that scientists must go through to make such Global Warming determinations .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ge=4&track=rss

[Great Idea]

The REAL "HYPE" that exists comes from the oil industry saying there is a
" lack" of options/technology or it will be "too expensive" or painful to covert to other fuel sources......although challenging the options are numerous.

http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/art...s=bibendum2006

[Airwaves]

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

If hydrogen were readily available for use as a fuel, a distribution system would quickly be developed.

Hydrogen is not readily available in nature, it is always combined with something else. The processes that currently produce hydrogen use more energy than the collected hydrogen will produce. Those processes use mostly energy derived from fossil fuels. There is a professor from U Lowell who feels hydrogen can be economically produced using nuclear energy, he is probably right but nuclear power has its own political problems.

Hydrogen is also very unstable (Hindenberg) and very difficult to store due to high pressure required and small molecule size. Gasoline is much more stable and exists as a liquid at room temperature.

If an economically viable source for hydrogen becomes available, you will see it take over oil as an energy source. There is nothing the "scary and omnipotent" oil companies will be able to do about it. Developing a distribution system before that source is available is like putting the cart before the horse, it doesn't make sense.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory

This is a very interesting read. There are two points that jump out; Mann's results do not seem to be reproducible and Mann seems to be unwilling to assist (even hindering) those trying to verify his work. Even without expertise in the subject matter these are significant reasons to question the conclusions that Mann draws as well as questioning his integrity.

In my opinion, much scientific work suffers from these types of problems. The only check on scientific work is that results are repeatable by other scientists, especially critics, and that rigorous review over time yields consistent results. This requires scientists to publish details of their research and support an open review process.

The current state of Global Warming theory is largely initial publication of observations and proposed explanations (theories) for those observations. They have not been replicated and reviewed. In fact, many articles that declare new observations often make comment about the fact that the current computer models can't explain the new data. That means that the existing models and the assumptions they were based on are WRONG. If we can't accurately predict climate behavior that is occurring right now, why would we think we have the slightest chance to predict climate changes 20 years or more from now?

If the "fix" for global warming was for everyone to chip in a few bucks and build a giant air conditioner for the planet I'd say, GREAT, let's do it. Even if they were wrong the cost is negligible and the impact controllable. However, the "fix" that is actually proposed would be severely crippling to our economy with a minimal impact on the problem. We simply do not have enough reliable information for a commitment of that scale.