February 15, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Michael D'Andrea (2/15/2009)
TJ (2/13/2009)[br]
............If you think it's a hoax then demonstrate it, where and how is any of the current theory incorrect, misguided, improperly researched. Let me guess, you have nothing? Vapid conspiracy theories are immaterial and dismissable, unless you have evidence to support them. And I mean real evidence, not conjecture, not hearsay, not lies, not misrepresentation of data, not cherry-picking of data and definitely nothing from the TV.
Simple: The planet is 4 billion years old. It has heated up, cooled down and back and forth over and over without this so-called human intervention. Is the climate changing? YES! Its always changing and when the planet explodes or the Universe gives up and everything in existence quits - then we can calculate averages and mins and maxes and know the deviations. Until then, 4 billion years of temperate swings and solar changes, continents drifting and everything else that goes on within this planet TRUMP what us nothing humans could have possibly done to alter things. The climate is fluid. It is always changing. We are NOT in control of this climate. Next you'll be telling me we can control the tides by repositioning the moon where we want it. The news used to give the weather people 120 seconds to get their report out AFTER the news the sports and the fruity story of the day. IF there was time left over, we got a weather forecast. Nowadays, our wonderful news/media LOVES to hype whatever stuff they can find on the weather up. Its sickening. You can hear them place emphasis on certain words and terms. They're trying to control how we should feel about this subject, just like they do every other subject.
http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog
We've got about as much chance of human created global warming as we did at finding weapons of mass destruction. People are fed up with this "sky is falling" mentality and the fear mongering and telling us we're all doomed. If I want to hear the end-of-times cries, all I need to do is walk into a NYC subway station and listen to the freaks telling me to repent because THEY KNOW WHEN the last day is. Please. A little bit of common sense and some intelligence goes a long way toward trumping this global warming crap.
OH, and those web sites you keep posting are government agencies. I, personally, hate the government and anything that has to do with it. They are liars, cheaters and thieves. 2 bailout bills for TRILLIONS of dollars spent on no one but themselves and we get stuck with the bill. Please. There is nothing honest about whatever comes from the government anymore, nor its cheerleaders (Al Gore and his science cronies).
We have enough issues to deal with: Crime, gangs, drunk driving, cancer, terrorism and so forth. What are you saving the planet for? So we can continue to kill each other and die of diseases? Why not fix what is tangibly happening right under our noses FIRST? Ah....... because that stuff is old and cant be hyped up anymore.
February 15, 2009 at 9:12 pm
GSquared (2/13/2009)
Here are some facts:
**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.
Cite the experiments that were used to prove this. How has this been "scientifically replicated". You're asserting as proven fact something that every scientist I've ever read anything about has stated is unprovable.
I want the names and publications of the papers, the dates of the experiments, and the names of the researchers.
GSquared, I've always asserted that science can never prove anything. Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. What I'm implying is that at this point in time climatologist opinions are almost unanimously beyond reasonable doubt.
P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker (University of Michigan) - The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide
Published by The American Physical Society, June 1932.
Moeller, F. (University of Munich) - ON THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IN AIR ON THE RADIATION BALANCE OF THE EARTH`S SURFACE AND ON THE CLIMATE
Published by Journal of Geophysical Research, July 1963
Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton University, Princeton) - The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.
Published by The Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, August 1974
Dates of experiments are not available but I'd imagine that in most cases they won't be far from the dates of publication. To explicitly find what experiments were used you'll need to pay (in the order of US$20 per research paper), which I am not prepared to do to satisfy your curiousity.
Here is an article that I think you'll find interesting with links to associated primary peer-reviewed research and articles:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
IR spectroscopy experiments have been replicated by adoption in other related scientific areas. For example the development of an IR absorption spectroscopy device used to measure CO2 and H2O in soils. The creation of such technology RELIES on the assumption that CO2 and H2O molecules absorb and re-radiate different wavelengths of infrared radiation. Another example in biomedical engineering is blood glucose measurement by multiple attenuated total reflection and IR absorption spectroscopy. The use of this technology vindicates past science being well grounded and peer supported.
In modern science, it is given that CO2 and all other GHGs absorb and re-radiate thermal radiation across various wavelengths. What is up for contention is the answer to the question "Are humans responsible for the additional CO2 causing the current period of warming?" This is what is not able to be proven. As an extention to that question, "Is there anything we can/should do about it?" In response to that, we are cumulatively and increasingly adding to the atmospheric chemical mix of GHGs. There is no such "hydrological cycle" that removes CO2 at high atmospheric concentrations, so we really are rolling dice with our future by carrying on with our current business as usual, CO2 out the chimney stack type of mentality. One hopes that you don't roll the dice in the same context at work, or at home, yet when it comes to the environment at large it seems to be both socially and politically acceptable! Personally, I can't reconcile that dichotomy.
February 15, 2009 at 9:32 pm
TJ (2/15/2009)
Simple: The planet is 4 billion years old. It has heated up, cooled down and back and forth over and over without this so-called human intervention. Is the climate changing? YES! Its always changing and when the planet explodes or the Universe gives up and everything in existence quits - then we can calculate averages and mins and maxes and know the deviations.
Mate, you were asked to provide some evidence to back your claim that global warming is a hoax. Simply repeating your amateur ideas about climate science is not adequate. You clearly have no evidence of a conspiracy, or of a hoax.
No doubt you believe the moon landings were a hoax as well (cant trust NASA can we?)
February 15, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Imagine this scenario. You are a developer with a query that is performing slowly. Luckily you have several thousand DBA's at your disposal. They look into it and tell you that you need an index on a field to fix the problem. But then some dude from marketing barges into the room and loudly exclaims 'It is a conspiracy of DBA's - they are just trying to boost their funding and keep control of the database. Dont listen to what they are saying'
Who do you believe?
Now replace DBA's with climate scientists, and the marketing guy with global warming deniers.
February 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
there was a painting of the beach from the 60s. the distance from the water's edge to the cemented platform tree was considerable. in my childhood, the sea already reached the cemented platform on high tide.
now, the sea has overtaken it. there are islands way ahead, which has time again, minimized tsunamis. if you knew wave dynamics, then countless big waves has been dissipated before reaching our beach. it also means, the beach is not facing any ocean shelf by itself to explain where the sands are falling. ** it should have been relatively stable over the decades **
i also noticed changes in the weather. when i was a child, when it rained, it rained hard. now it rains like the way it rains in the northern lands thousands of kilometers away, sometimes strong or weak. summer is hotter and a lot longer. it is difficult to sleep at night with just an electric fan.
---
i have come to realize that the more we attack or defend each other position's, the more entrenched either side is. i do believe there is a serious climate change going on. it is felt a lot more in the tropics because it has lively weather.
and oh yes, i noticed there were dead coral reefs when i was child. seeing images of the australian reef over decades convinced me also. You Cannot Tell A Coral To Lie.
February 16, 2009 at 8:11 am
I agree with the Michael Crichton's point that there are some things that science won't be able to determine (perhaps whether God exists, the influence of Yin and Yang on the universe, what I dreamed last night are examples of such things) but I disagree that global warming is one of them.
We don't deal with iterative processes much in database land (sounds a bit too much like a cursor, *shudder*) but that's what science is. Some data is gathered, conclusions are drawn. Maybe some more data is gathered which contradicts the first experiment. So you do more experiments. Though time, the methods and instruments you are using improve, you are able to analyse data with more powerful computers/taking into account previously unrecognised processes. Eventually, as more and more experiments are done, one conclusion will become more and more apparent.
Michael Crichton's point is that if there's one contradictory study then you can't rely on any of the evidence as it's possible that the theory could be wrong (he uses the example of pellagra in 1920s America). If this were the case, Guine$$ would still be good for us, herion and cigerettes would be good for a cough and no pharmaceutical product would ever get taken off the shelves for causing fatal side effects as the pharmaceutical companies are sure to have some data that says they don't.
Remember, just because a fool doesn't believe in the existence of gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist...
What I really don't understand is WHY YOU CONSPIRACY-THEORY GUYS REGARD THIS AS A POLITICAL ISSUE?
I read scientific evidence that demonstrates convincingly that the world is warming.
I can reduce my carbon footprint by
1) not using my car too much
2) insulating my house
3) recycling
4) not eating beef
This has the multiple effect of reducing my bills, helping the environment and reducing our dependancy on oil so we don't have to have stupid wars which are expensive and kill people.
No politicians told me to implement points 1 to 4, not even Al Gore (who's film I haven't actually seen, incidentally) and frankly, I don't see how me doing any of the above is going to benefit him in the slightest.
Also, none of the above is really a great effort at all - walking keeps me fit, separating my rubbish takes seconds. I can't afford a Porsche but I don't mind some of my taxes going to help the environment.
It's naive to think that nothing we do has an effect on the atmosphere of our planet - consider the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer or methanobacteria - they might only be tiny but they account for over a third of the man-made sources of methane (total of man-made sources of methane = 330 Tg/a compared to 270 Tg/a for all natural sources).
All I can suggest is that you stop listening to political (or anti-political) orators and start listening to the vast body of scientists who have expertise in the relavent fields.
Viewing 6 posts - 91 through 95 (of 95 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply