| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Location: South Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I wouldn't dein to get into a left vs right debate with you because frankly it's a false dichotomy. I would agree with you that NASA is a fairly reliable outlet. However this article sites no peer reviewed articles and makes many of the same baseless assumptions that the scientists in the Senate Minority Report complain of. Just quickly this one
| Quote: |
| A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. |
There are thousands of scientists who would disagree with this "small number" part of this statement.
I highly reccomend that you read the senate minority report that mises posted and then get back to me.
| Quote: |
The above article from dailytech.com has no basis what so ever  |
Would you care to elaborate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Climate skeptics love citing MIT prof Richard Lindzen, probably because, well, there aren't many other semi-legitimate skeptics left to cite. |
Whoa wait. Since when did he have any legitimacy? I thought his support of the tobacco companies ("the link between smoking and lung cancer is tenuous at best") sorta made it clear he was easily bought.
The DailyTech article cites the Arctic Climate research Centre at U of Ill ( http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ ) but it uses pretty much the most difficult to read of the graphs availible. This graph gives a bit more context and is certainly easier to read than the one included in the article:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
There was a very slight increase in both summer and winter sea ice but I don't think it's a surprise that the numbers didn't go down with no reprieve. It's more important to look at trends and since the 50s, trends indicate a lowering.
Given that the arctic study centre is actually supportive of Climate change, doesn't it seem like a bit of a misrepresentation for the DailyTech to misrepresent the story?
| Quote: |
There are thousands of scientists who would disagree with this "small number" part of this statement.
|
That number is relative. While it depends on what you classify as a scientist, the "thousands" you argue could get paired down to a few dozens.
If you choose to define "scientists" anyone with a B/M/PhD regardless of area of expertise, then yes there may be thousands who disagree. But there would be HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of thousands who do not.
I would wager about 98-99% of climatologists the world over agree with GW. And frankly, climatologists are the only scientists whose opinions matter to me.
I tried to read mises' senate report but it didn't load on my mac. Is there a way to fix that? Could you post the title? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is there a way to fix that? Could you post the title? |
It's in PDF format so you may need the plug in for Safari or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmm... I'm on firefox so that shouldn't matter. That's a curious thing.
Could you tell me the name? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The document you requested can not be found or is undergoing routine maintenance.
Appears to be down right now.
Must be some sort of global warming conspiracy against the truth! 
Will try to find it from another source, one moment please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Haha. There are a heap of blogs that link to it but nobody has the actual file. Seems like it is generating a lot of interest and maybe that caused it to crash.
You can goggle US Senate Minority Report, Global Warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
K...I think I found the report...but it's from 2007...now updated for 2008. Is it the one claiming a lack of "consensus"? Cause I can't read 231 pages
There is SO much information there it's tough for me to comment in too much depth.
re:
| Quote: |
| ... . scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned �in one fell swoop� the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled �Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth�s Climate System,� was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. ( |
Wiki writes of SS:
| Quote: |
Schwartz estimated climate sensitivity based on the heat capacity and the time constant of the climate system. Heat capacity was estimated with ocean heat content and the time constant by perturbations and relaxations in the surface temperature record. His estimate of climate sensitivity was about one-third that of the most recent estimate by the IPCC. Schwartz's estimate has been criticized by data analyst and statistician Grant Foster and climate researchers James Annan, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. In their analysis, Schwartz's method produces climate lag times that are "unrealistically low in comparison to the known behaviour of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing." [3]
Schwartz's initial estimate of climate sensitivity in his 2007 paper was of an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled carbon dioxide of 1.1 � 0.5 K. In a revised 2008 paper Schwartz increased his estimate to 1.9 � 1.0 K, a number "somewhat lower than the central estimate of the sensitivity given in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but consistent within the uncertainties of both estimates". [4]
Despite his lower estimate for sensitivity, Schwartz is still concerned about global warming. Schwartz explained his research by saying "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room, but a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]. |
| Quote: |
| �Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.� Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. |
So clearly Dr. Wilson is either misleading or presumptuous.
re:
| Quote: |
| �Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,� Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. |
It's difficult to comment on a theoretical physicists' blog.
The article I read:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 (again, sorry i don't have time to read the report).
It seems like the whole rigmarole surrounds this "one" paper and an improper implication surrounding it's findings. Even the author still believes it is a concern; though perhaps not as dire as some would believe.
I just find it weird that when the VAST VAST VAST majority of scientists (I'm talking tens/hundreds of thousands) agree on one issue, a government web page would go out of their way to give a VERY POWERFUL voice to a (relatively) tiny minority. Why would that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well if there's no global warming.....
...what's causing the glaciers to melt  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Well if there's no global warming.....
...what's causing the glaciers to melt |
The OP believes that if it snows in one part of the world then global climate change must be a myth. Not taking into account that past studies have already stated that this would happen as a result of the glaciers melting. To put things in simplistic terms, the melting glaciers cool the oceans which in turn cause some areas of the world to experience a type of cooling. This however does not change the fact that the earth is undergoing a general warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Well if there's no global warming.....
...what's causing the glaciers to melt |
Which ones are melting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Well if there's no global warming.....
...what's causing the glaciers to melt |
Which ones are melting? |
Try doing some research. The answer is not that hard to find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Provence wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Well if there's no global warming.....
...what's causing the glaciers to melt |
Which ones are melting? |
Try doing some research. The answer is not that hard to find. |
Granted. Just did a google search and it came up with literally dozens of cases of melting glaciers. And that was a stupid question by me. But get back to me with how many glaciers there are in the world and how many are actively surveyed. Then we can talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
