|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will anthropogenic global warming be revealed as a political sham? |
| Yes, in the next 6 months |
|
32% |
[ 11 ] |
| Yes, in the next 12 months |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, in the next 24 months |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, but long after we're all dead and buried. |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I hadn't even voted on this thread yet. Guess it's too late now!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tehe. Me too. Being vindicated is so much fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I fail to see how anything's been revealed as a sham. This is a matter where only time will tell.
And for what it's worth, I looked at a random sample of those emails rather than a cherry picked selection and failed to see what all the fuss was about. Lots of boring disscussion on how to analyse data and a couple of personal disagreements.
I've done some of the basic physics behind this myself in a 200 level lab. At the most basic level it's pretty easy. Calculating all the feedbacks and predicting relative temperature changes is a nightmare so I have a lot less confidence in those. But still increased CO2 and other GHG lower the rate of reradiation of IR. That energy has to go somewhere, and it's not into space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| I fail to see how anything's been revealed as a sham. |
The emails only confirm what skeptic scientists have know for years, despite being bullied and persecuted by charlatans working for the likes of the CRU...
In short, everything you "think" you know about AGW is now based on outright lies. You can't even start over from scratch, because AGW skeptic scientists have been vindicated at the same the liars have been fully exposed. AGW science is dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| I fail to see how anything's been revealed as a sham. |
The emails only confirm what skeptic scientists have know for years, despite being bullied and persecuted by charlatans working for the likes of the CRU...
In short, everything you "think" you know about AGW is now based on outright lies. You can't even start over from scratch, because AGW skeptic scientists have been vindicated at the same the liars have been fully exposed. AGW science is dead. |
Rubbish. CO2 still absorbs infrared radiation. The earth is still warmer than it would be were it a blackbody. And there's still increasing amounts of CO2 and methane being pumped out each day. None of those things are lies.
And you haven't even really shown that anythings a lie either. AGW science is incredibly complex, though at the heart of it is some pretty basic physics. As I've said, I've done those experiments, myself, in a undergraduate lab. It's required for 200 level physics to understand radiation absorption and emission. As I said before that energy has to go somewhere.
It's been roughly a week since those servers were hacked, no? That's not nearly enough time to read all the emails, interview all the people involved and check everything properly. Plenty of time to look for email sound bites and release them free of context though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see how this sexy 'scandal' disproves anthropogenic global warming. Could mises and his cohorts please explain how this is proves it was all a conspiracy? It's just a storm in a teacup, that shows that scientists are in fact human beings - talking the way many of us talk in private - nothing more shocking than that.
I'm waiting for the hooha to settle down and more rational analysis to take place. I'd like to know more about the context of these emails too. For example, one of the more 'scandalous' ones goes like this:
| Quote: |
| "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" |
This is being used to show that there is other 'science' which totally disproves the research of these climate scientists (now on public trial).
In fact it turns out that one of those 'papers' was in fact published in the journal Climate Research, and turned out to be so badly flawed that it resulted in the editor-in-chief getting the sack! So they were probably justified to want to keep it out - especially as they knew that the climate change deniers would latch on to it as proof that global warming is just some crazy conspiracy of the left.
This is not some frivolous aspect of science. Our futures may hang in the balance. I'm not surprised that people who understand the gravity of possible consequences of climate denial are concerned about such stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I don't see how this sexy 'scandal' disproves anthropogenic global warming. Could mises and his cohorts please explain how this is proves it was all a conspiracy? It's just a storm in a teacup, that shows that scientists are in fact human beings - talking the way many of us talk in private - nothing more shocking than that.
I'm waiting for the hooha to settle down and more rational analysis to take place. I'd like to know more about the context of these emails too. For example, one of the more 'scandalous' ones goes like this:
| Quote: |
| "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" |
This is being used to show that there is other 'science' which totally disproves the research of these climate scientists (now on public trial).
In fact it turns out that one of those 'papers' was in fact published in the journal Climate Research, and turned out to be so badly flawed that it resulted in the editor-in-chief getting the sack! So they were probably justified to want to keep it out - especially as they knew that the climate change deniers would latch on to it as proof that global warming is just some crazy conspiracy of the left.
This is not some frivolous aspect of science. Our futures may hang in the balance. I'm not surprised that people who understand the gravity of possible consequences of climate denial are concerned about such stuff. |
I agree.
So far there's a lot of cries of 'scandal' and 'sham' but very little besides two scientists talking ever so candidly to each other taken out of context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I don't see how this sexy 'scandal' disproves anthropogenic global warming. Could mises and his cohorts please explain how this is proves it was all a conspiracy? It's just a storm in a teacup, that shows that scientists are in fact human beings - talking the way many of us talk in private - nothing more shocking than that.
I'm waiting for the hooha to settle down and more rational analysis to take place. I'd like to know more about the context of these emails too. For example, one of the more 'scandalous' ones goes like this:
| Quote: |
| "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" |
This is being used to show that there is other 'science' which totally disproves the research of these climate scientists (now on public trial).
In fact it turns out that one of those 'papers' was in fact published in the journal Climate Research, and turned out to be so badly flawed that it resulted in the editor-in-chief getting the sack! So they were probably justified to want to keep it out - especially as they knew that the climate change deniers would latch on to it as proof that global warming is just some crazy conspiracy of the left.
This is not some frivolous aspect of science. Our futures may hang in the balance. I'm not surprised that people who understand the gravity of possible consequences of climate denial are concerned about such stuff. |
I agree.
So far there's a lot of cries of 'scandal' and 'sham' but very little besides two scientists talking ever so candidly to each other taken out of context. |
It's not just the e-mails. The science seems flawed as well
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/25/climategate-forget-the-emails |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| I fail to see how anything's been revealed as a sham. |
The emails only confirm what skeptic scientists have know for years, despite being bullied and persecuted by charlatans working for the likes of the CRU...
In short, everything you "think" you know about AGW is now based on outright lies. You can't even start over from scratch, because AGW skeptic scientists have been vindicated at the same the liars have been fully exposed. AGW science is dead. |
Rubbish. CO2 still absorbs infrared radiation. The earth is still warmer than it would be were it a blackbody. And there's still increasing amounts of CO2 and methane being pumped out each day. None of those things are lies. |
Rubbish is exactly what you're basing all your flawed assumptions on. That CO2 is increasing is irrelevant. The amount of CO2 we produce is negligible, and the levels have been higher before in history (and gone down again).
| Quote: |
| And you haven't even really shown that anythings a lie either. AGW science is incredibly complex, though at the heart of it is some pretty basic physics. As I've said, I've done those experiments, myself, in a undergraduate lab. It's required for 200 level physics to understand radiation absorption and emission. As I said before that energy has to go somewhere. |
Oh please. You're pretty much just admitting you haven't read any of the emails (they actually admit they are lying). As for your undergrad studies - sorry to say, but they don't count for much of anything... The amount of energy trapped by the CO2 produced by humans is negligible and is not responsible for climate change.
| Quote: |
| It's been roughly a week since those servers were hacked, no? That's not nearly enough time to read all the emails, interview all the people involved and check everything properly. Plenty of time to look for email sound bites and release them free of context though. |
Actually, most of the blatant lies have already been exposed, and the more time that passes the worse it gets for them. It's game over for them (and for you, if you continue to base your beliefs on their lies). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base.
Levels have never been higher in history. Maybe you're thinking prehistory. Which isn't relevant to our current situation. I'm sure the earth will be fine. Not so sure about our infrastructure.
It's quite true that 95% of CO is released by natural sources. It's also taken up at the same rate in a cycle. What we're doing is introducing a new source. That's accumulating, hence the CO2 rise.
I've read a random sample of the emails. I've also looked at the cherry picked quotes. I don't see anything of real scientific note, as opposed to political note.
And you haven't answered my implicit question, which I will now make explicit. Where is that energy trapped by CO2 going? Increased GHG concentrations=reduced atmospheric free path of IR radiation=decrease of energy radiated into space. So where is it going, if not into heat?
*edit just checked Wiki. CO2 concentrations are at the highest point of the last 800,000-20,000,000 years depending on the amount of certainty you require. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base.
Levels have never been higher in history. |
Interesting also to note that the warming of the past 30 years has resulted in a measurably cooler upper atmosphere- indicating an increase in CO2.
This also indicates that increased solar activity is not behind the warming: if it was it would be warming the stratosphere as well as troposhere (layer of air closest to earths surface).
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/10/why-is-earths-upper-atmosphere-cooling/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base.
Levels have never been higher in history. Maybe you're thinking prehistory. Which isn't relevant to our current situation. I'm sure the earth will be fine. Not so sure about our infrastructure.
It's quite true that 95% of CO is released by natural sources. It's also taken up at the same rate in a cycle. What we're doing is introducing a new source. That's accumulating, hence the CO2 rise.
I've read a random sample of the emails. I've also looked at the cherry picked quotes. I don't see anything of real scientific note, as opposed to political note.
And you haven't answered my implicit question, which I will now make explicit. Where is that energy trapped by CO2 going? Increased GHG concentrations=reduced atmospheric free path of IR radiation=decrease of energy radiated into space. So where is it going, if not into heat?
*edit just checked Wiki. CO2 concentrations are at the highest point of the last 800,000-20,000,000 years depending on the amount of certainty you require. |
I meant world history, not human history. Human history is a mere blip, barely worth mentioning.
Wiki is not much of a source - but regardless, 800,000 years is nothing in the scheme of things. I have a source here that shows the CO2 levels were actually 12X higher during the late Ordovician Period ice-age than they are now... I realize that was long ago, but the point stands: CO2 levels can be 12X higher than present and still leave us in an ice-age.
Regarding your explicit question: not all energy from the sun is trapped forever in the atmosphere. If it were, we would slowly heat up until we were the same temperature as the sun. The CO2 levels go up and down, just as other greenhouse gases do. It's just common sense...
| Quote: |
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. |
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base. |
Yeah, from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Regarding your explicit question: not all energy from the sun is trapped forever in the atmosphere. If it were, we would slowly heat up until we were the same temperature as the sun. The CO2 levels go up and down, just as other greenhouse gases do. It's just common sense...
|
And in what range of CO2 levels can humans comfortably live? Just asking. I don't mean to be pedantic, but if dinosaurs, for example, could live within a different range than humans, it doesn't really matter to me. I ain't a dinosaur and neither are you. As an aside, I would not be all that happy crowded together with a few billion people in a cave in a mountain side.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the Right prefers breathing sewer gas just because the first Earth Day was in 1970 (more or less the peak of hippiedom)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Regarding your explicit question: not all energy from the sun is trapped forever in the atmosphere. If it were, we would slowly heat up until we were the same temperature as the sun. The CO2 levels go up and down, just as other greenhouse gases do. It's just common sense...
|
And in what range of CO2 levels can humans comfortably live? Just asking. I don't mean to be pedantic, but if dinosaurs, for example, could live within a different range than humans, it doesn't really matter to me. I ain't a dinosaur and neither are you. As an aside, I would not be all that happy crowded together with a few billion people in a cave in a mountain side.
|
I believe CO2 becomes toxic at 7%. Compare to numbers above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
