Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
19 crawler(s) on-line.
 125 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 clint:  33 mins ago
 RickSkid:  43 mins ago
 bhabbott:  48 mins ago
 BigD:  51 mins ago
 Diane:  53 mins ago
 VooDoo:  57 mins ago
 A1200:  1 hr 1 min ago
 pixie:  1 hr 13 mins ago
 retrofaza:  1 hr 14 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  1 hr 35 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  General Technology (No Console Threads)
      /  Global warming Volume 4
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 Next Page )
PosterThread
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 28-Jun-2009 22:40:39
#81 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

With a rapid sight, at least 4 problems with Lean 2008:
1/ the adjustment of SST from the CRU team are kept secret by Phil Jones. It is impossible to know what data have been adjusted, when and how ;
2/ no cloud influence ;
3/ the paper is based on estimates to quantify attribution ; it for example refutes the 69% of solar influence in warming found by Scafetta who based his study on satellite data. Since when an estimate is more correct than observational data?
4/ methodologically, is it reliable to decompose global signals (GS) onto a gridded map (5°x5°) when GS themselves do not cover most of the globe?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 1:30:36
#82 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
As for your (1), I took the time to show you the quote you provided has its first part not referenced in the EMail. You were the one providing it, so it is your responsibility to demonstrate the quote was from Peisner, not mine.
On your point (1) I fairly described the problem here. The article says 'when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us', provided the quote, and then at the end of that quote cite the email. The question here did he 'tell' them as stated or was it really cited as stated? You assumed it was a quote that was fabricated. It very well may not be false at all. Instead the problem may lie with an incorrect citing.

At one time you posted that we must assume the work is true until it's proved utterly false. You picked the one in your favor and ran with it. Neither one of us hasn't proved the other option, poor citing, is utterly false.

Quote:
Marvellous, but why then slander them and other people with negative words like 'deniers'
My mimicked post was as impersonal as hundreds of TMTisFree using similar terms for his unfavorite side btw.


Quote:
non-existence of 'consensus' because in the normal state of Science there can not exists such political definition
If you're looking for 'fallacies' then it sounds a bit like you're backing the rhetorical Michael Crition view that - If it's science it's not politics and if it's politics it's not science. You opinion here differs from my opinion, which I'll expand upon..

IMO this is a misunderstanding of science. Science is a pursuit by men, as such the political is always at work. In any course of scientific endeavor there evolves a mainstream view and a exception view. It's the mainstream view, aka consensus, that people receive when they ask what the current theory about X is. The consensus views communicated to society, for example they are the one's included in textbooks used for schools and universities. Without this politic science would be unable to communicate it's state or even have an influence on society. If science is to change our world it cannot do it without a politic.

The consensus view is always under attack by the exception viewers. This is the state of science. If the exception view can't build a better mousetrap then the consensus view is strengthened. If the exception does build a better mousetrap then the consensus is weakened and faulters. In it's place a new consensus is generated, along with a new set of exceptors.

So should we ignore the consensus and accept only the exceptors? That answer wouldn't be rational and perhaps even itself is unscientific. The consensus is the group, presently, with a more complete theory of the workings we question. (Again see the politics at work here it's part of science.)

Yes, it stands that while a consensus does exist, and it does there is more evidence, experiments, and scientists backing AGW, we should continue to do the science and one day the anti-AGW crowd might build a strong enough case of their exception to the consensus to overturn our present understanding.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tomas 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 12:04:34
#83 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Jul-2003
Posts: 4286
From: Unknown

Interesting article about modified GISS temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 12:36:30
#84 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

...
These type of studies seem to always speak as if some one was there, witnessed and recorded the event instead of being honest and saying "this is our best theory so far."

Quote:


We know from looking at much older climate records that large and rapid increase in C02 in the past, (about 55 million years ago) caused large extinction in bottom-dwelling ocean creatures,



No they really don't know for certain.



So you can see inside their heads? You can read their minds?
Or where do you take the confidence from for your statement?

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

...
But I'm annoyed at what seems to me to be endless political half truths and spectulation being heaped on us as irrefutible proof, which it isnt.



It "seems to you to be endless political half truths and spectulation" - ever taken the possibility into account that you just got the wrong impression?

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

Personally I beleive the Sun is larger factor than any thing.



I as a layman can't determine which has bigger impact on our climate - Earth's orbit, the sun, CO2 or other greenhouse gases released by mankinds actions...

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

Sure man is mucking things up with polution and bad resoure management and that needs to be handled.



So we are in full agreement here.

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

But hit the off switch on the Sun and see how fast the debate over the influence of the Sun on the climate change dies as this place turns into a cold dead rock.



Does something like "the off switch" for the sun exist in real life?

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

And just as equally turn up it's brightness by a constant 3% over decades and see how fast those little planktons (and a lot of other things) fizzle.



Isn't that what we're quasi doing when we're burning "fossile fuels"?

Aren't we digging "additional sunshine" in the form of crude oil out of the ground and light up a "second sun" when we burn those fuels, whose crude materials (trees) were created (grown) by the sunshine millions of years ago?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 13:07:14
#85 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

In the USA recently there has been "news" of the EPA supressing papers that were skeptical of GW. A draft of the supressed paper has been released. Personally, I think it's noteable that neither of the authors are climatologists nor has the paper been peer reviewed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 19:02:33
#86 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
In the USA recently there has been "news" of the EPA supressing papers that were skeptical of GW...

Instead of rehashing the miserable thread and comments that Schmidt has written at UnRealClimate (you have appreciated the high number of ad hominem and other straw men and fallacies by Schmidt, haven't you?), why not stick to facts? For example:
1/ EPA has stated that anyone could submit comments on the endangerment (even you: have you?) ; why not Dr Carlin?
2/ the author of the paper (Dr Carlin) has a degree in Physics (and Economics): since when climatology (a minor science btw) does not belong to Physics?
3/ the EPA did not required that comments on endangerment had to be peer reviewed (see 1/) ;
4/ heck, even you have probably understood (I hope) some trivial facts in climatology: why not Dr Carlin who has studied climate for many decades?

I am not a US citizen but I am at least searching for facts before regurgitating such UnReal (read senseless) comment. Btw the original article was written first on the 2008 best science blog.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 19:29:07
#87 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
You assumed it was a quote that was fabricated. It very well may not be false at all. Instead the problem may lie with an incorrect citing.
I fail to see the difference between 'fabricated' and 'incorrect citing'. When I said 'invented' I did not said 'purposely invented'. Nevertheless, your initial quote was not found in the Email ABC got from Dr Peisner. A simple search should have shown it to you.

Quote:
At one time you posted that we must assume the work is true until it's proved utterly false.
Incorrect quoting, once again but purposely this time. Not a 'work' or a quote: a scientific study/paper. Care to name the fallacy of you doing so?

Quote:
My mimicked post was as impersonal as hundreds of TMTisFree using similar terms for his unfavorite side btw.
I was not pointing a post in particular but the tens since AGW thread n°1. Btw I am proud to be a sceptic (in Science particularly and in life in general): keep your head in sand.

Quote:
If you're looking for 'fallacies' then it sounds a bit like you're backing the rhetorical Michael Crition view
Cool. So I am also honoured to share the same view as M. Crichton, a very advanced writer with scientific background the world has enjoyed to read. To save me time and to rest on a positive mood, I will not read the end of your probably incoherent rambling (no benefice of the doubt).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Plaz 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2009 21:36:10
#88 ]
Super Member
Joined: 2-Oct-2003
Posts: 1573
From: Atlanta

@Dandy

First let me say I'm not picking or singling you out specifically in any way. Just making a wider assessment of these publications. I just happened to use the one you pointed out in my examples.

With that said....

Quote:
So you can see inside their heads? You can read their minds?
Or where do you take the confidence from for your statement?


I am 100% sure there were no humans, or scientist 2.1 million years ago available to take samples, record the climate or other cosmic or terrestrial variables that may have been in play and preserve them that we may do an accurate comparison to other time periods preceding, including our own. I'm skeptical of any ancient sample taken from our ever changing environment that's presented as if it's "frozen in time" and as accurate as if it were plucked strait from millions of years ago.

Quote:
It "seems to you to be endless political half truths and speculation - ever taken the possibility into account that you just got the wrong impression?


Yes, I do. And I'm perfectly willing to accept that my opinion may be wrong. I am very flexible. I just want to have information that I can trust. Here I'm pointing out the reasons why I can't fully trust these publications. I see that some authors are the ones less willing to admit they may be wrong.

Quote:
I as a layman can't determine which has bigger impact on our climate - Earth's orbit, the sun, CO2 or other greenhouse gases released by mankinds actions...


True for me also. I observe that some publications minimize or ignore this nuclear monster next door. That I disagree with.

Quote:
Quote:

Plaz wrote:

Sure man is mucking things up with pollution and bad resource management and that needs to be handled.


So we are in full agreement here.



Completely. I also think it would be ultimate proof of many things if would could put the environment back to near the conditions they were in say 1900 within a few days, sit back and watch the results. At least my sinuses would rejoice.

Quote:
Does something like "the off switch" for the sun exist in real life?


Not that I'm aware of. Posed as an extrapolated theory.

Quote:


Isn't that what we're quasi doing when we're burning "fossile fuels"?

Aren't we digging "additional sunshine" in the form of crude oil out of the ground and light up a "second sun" when we burn those fuels, whose crude materials (trees) were created (grown) by the sunshine millions of years ago?


Here we may drift apart abit as we go back to the "how much of a roll does CO2 play" discussions. In the past the world has been warmer than now, many times. Also it has been colder than now, many times. (If we agree to accept some of the finding by said same scientist) Why is this? Man was not present during these past changes. I'm not sure if I'm as concerned about the CO2 (as many studies say it has varied over eons) as I am with the polluting byproducts created by the industrial irresponsibility going on world wide.

"Be well, waste less, pollute less and recycle"
Plaz

edit: can't spell "next door"

Last edited by Plaz on 29-Jun-2009 at 09:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 1:50:58
#89 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
Instead of rehashing the miserable thread and comments that Schmidt has written at UnRealClimate
False and unprove accusations. If some other blog somewhere had a similar topic, well no suprise there as this got big news in the USA.

It's odd to see you arguing that the EPA should somehow accept a paper that has not met the assessment of the scientific community. I'd think you'd not want to give politicans, EPA, the right to accept unvetted 'science'.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jun-2009 at 01:51 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 2:02:37
#90 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
I fail to see the difference between 'fabricated' and 'incorrect citing'.
Your claim was the a quote was a 'mere invention' (Post #76). The act of inventing is an active and conscious process of creation. The choice here is was this an active act of deception or was this a poorly cited section. There are 2 claims here. One is 'told' one is 'email'. We've shown 1 'email' to be untrue. This doesn't show the 'told' false and and until we do we don't know if the withdrawl is true or not.

Quote:
I am proud to be a sceptic
So am I thanks. Do we get a secret handshake?

Quote:
So I am also honoured to share the same view as M. Crichton,
Crichton is not a quality scientist. His books are so widely read because he's a pulp writer. Reading Crichton for scientific accuracy is absurb. Have you actually read him?

Quote:
I will not read the end
Ignorance is bliss...

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jun-2009 at 02:07 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jun-2009 at 02:06 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 10:20:20
#91 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@BrianK

Quote:
In the USA recently there has been "news" of the EPA supressing papers that were skeptical of GW. A draft of the supressed paper has been released. Personally, I think it's noteable that neither of the authors are climatologists nor has the paper been peer reviewed.


I noticed a few other points.


  • 1. the paper originated within the EPA
  • 2. it was handled by administrators in the worst possible way
  • 3. It claimed that the science with respect to carbon emmissions was not sufficiently certain to justify government regulation of emmissions - essentially a political argument which, if accepted, puts their whole effort back into never-never land where it had been during the Bush era!
  • 4. The entire incident may be innocent, but has all the hallmarks of a setup, familiar in political arenas, yet I have seen administrators and politicians fall for it time and again



Given the origin of the document, a politically aware administrator should have seen the possibility of a trap immediately. S/he should have been aware that the document may already be in the hands of outside parties keen to take advantage of the situation it creates, if they are permitted. Any attempt at muzzling the contributor or suppressing the document, without due process, springs the trap.

I can't think of a name for this ploy but there has to be one. I've seen it used to discredit a government before, and there are always issues of rights associated with efforts to prevent someone from having their say. The one unforgivable sin is the refusal to listen. We do it all the time!

Any administration should have a policy governing unsolicited internal contributions to a matter in the public eye, perhaps along these lines:
Thank the contributor, assure consideration and a reply as to its merits - leave a scientific response to a suitable scientist and a political response to a politician. If you are the top dog reply to point 3 concerning the validity of regulation given the weight of evidence and the apparent need to ensure a portfolio of carbon cutting technologies get room to develop and eventually supplant fossil fuels. The contributor could properly be reminded that the document has no standing as an institutional report, it's content, and public statements concerning it stand on their own merits, and may not presume on, or imply any standing in association with the institution. Did the author say this himself? Thus freedoms are maintained as well as the integrity of the institutional processes.

My own observation, and dare I say experience, is that suppression and muzzling is a natural and always unfortunate reaction of an administrator, that said, much opinion is without merit. There would be less of it if the science was better presented to the public and not put out of reach of most people. It has been my rule of thumb that if a scientist, or any other nominal expert, cannot explain an issue, argument or process in principle to an intelligent layman, that person may justly be suspected of not really knowing what s/he is talking about.

Noel

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Dandy 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 10:58:25
#92 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Mar-2003
Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote:
@Dandy

First let me say I'm not picking or singling you out specifically in any way. Just making a wider assessment of these publications. I just happened to use the one you pointed out in my examples.

With that said....

Quote:


So you can see inside their heads? You can read their minds?
Or where do you take the confidence from for your statement?



I am 100% sure there were no humans, or scientist 2.1 million years ago available to take samples, record the climate or other cosmic or terrestrial variables that may have been in play and preserve them that we may do an accurate comparison to other time periods preceding, including our own. I'm skeptical of any ancient sample taken from our ever changing environment that's presented as if it's "frozen in time" and as accurate as if it were plucked strait from millions of years ago.



I fully agree - mankind didn't exist 2.1 mio yrs ago as far as we know.

But further down you wrote:
"In the past the world has been warmer than now, many times. Also it has been colder than now, many times."

I think that with "in the past" you are referring to the time period before said 2.1 mio yrs - but if we agree that mankind or scientists didn't even exist back then to take samples, how is it then possible to claim that "the world has been warmer than now, many times. Also it has been colder than now, many times."?

Where do you take the confidence from that this could be right, if you're "skeptical of any ancient sample taken from our ever changing environment that's presented as if it's "frozen in time" and as accurate as if it were plucked strait from millions of years ago"?


Quote:

Plaz wrote:

...

Quote:


I as a layman can't determine which has bigger impact on our climate - Earth's orbit, the sun, CO2 or other greenhouse gases released by mankinds actions...



True for me also. I observe that some publications minimize or ignore this nuclear monster next door. That I disagree with.



I mean - for me it is logical that a complex system as global climate cannot be depicted in its entirety in every publication.
One publication focusses on the sunspots, annother on earth's orbit, annother on CO2 pollution and again another on the risk of an rapid increase of methane in the atmosphere by the melting of large undersea deposits of hydro methane (or "ice that burns") because of warming oceans, which could in turn lead to a rapid increase of global temperatures by that methane's greenhouse effect.

From the publications on this matter that I read so far I have not got the feeling that they minimize or ignore the other factors - they're just focussing on one of them.
The sum of them might come close to describing the problem properly...

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

Quote:


So we are in full agreement here.



Completely. I also think it would be ultimate proof of many things if would could put the environment back to near the conditions they were in say 1900 within a few days, sit back and watch the results. At least my sinuses would rejoice.



Yeah - recently I had the chance to watch some of the rare colour film documents from the WWII period. The sea and the sky looked so blue that it seemed to be unnatural from a todays perspective.

I asked myself if I could smell a difference, if I was able to take a deep breath of that seemingly much cleaner air of the 1930s...

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

...

Quote:


Isn't that what we're quasi doing when we're burning "fossile fuels"?

Aren't we digging "additional sunshine" in the form of crude oil out of the ground and light up a "second sun" when we burn those fuels, whose crude materials (trees) were created (grown) by the sunshine millions of years ago?



Here we may drift apart abit as we go back to the "how much of a roll does CO2 play" discussions.



Naaahhh - not really, as I did not want to discuss the role of CO2 here - I just wanted to illustrate what we are basically doing by burning fossiles. Decades of ancient sunshine were necessary to grow a tree some million years ago - and we release this "ancient sunshine of decades" within minutes by driving a few miles/kilometers.

I'm not talking about the greenhouse effect yet - just about how we "transfer" the heat from the past's sunshine into the present time by burning "the end product of prehistorical tree production".

Every combustion process generates heat.
We're burning oil at a large scale, which developed from ancient trees, that were grown by ancient sunshine. So what we're doing presently comes indeed close to lighting a second sun...

And if one now takes the greenhouse effect of the CO2 into account, that is likewise generated (the CO2) when we burn fossile fuels, it becomes clear that on the one hand we're "increasing sunlight" (by generating heat), while on the other hand we're reducing the atmosphere's ability to dissipate this additional heat to space (by aerating it).

Now one could argue that CO2 is by far not the gas with the biggest greenhouse effect - fact is we're adding on top of the natural factors at a large scale.

Given that more and more developing countries (India, China, ...) jump on that "burning fossiles train", it should be clear that this has the potential to lead straight into a catastrophe, given that "the world has been warmer than now, many times", as you said - you don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

...
I'm not sure if I'm as concerned about the CO2 (as many studies say it has varied over eons) as I am with the polluting byproducts created by the industrial irresponsibility going on world wide.



Of course this pollution is annother major issue.
You see - there's a lot to be done - let's tackle it!

Quote:

Plaz wrote:

"Be well, waste less, pollute less and recycle"
...



Fully agreed!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 11:24:43
#93 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@NoelFuller

Quote:
it was handled by administrators in the worst possible way
I definitely agree the administrators could have handled it better. I think you're spot on in your assessment the paper wasn't science it was building a political opinion. I think the admins could have accepted it anyways and then simply not used it. When asked why the paper wasn't followed it could then be more easily explained that there were myriads of papers ont he subject and the preponderance of evidence was pro-AGW. So the paper was 'used' it just wasn't the statistically significant as the discussion is taken as a whole.

Quote:
It claimed that the science with respect to carbon emmissions was not sufficiently certain to justify government regulation of emmissions
Again definitely a political, not scientific, idea. Should the government act with the majority consensus of scientists. Or should it heed the small minority view? There is no unanimous science. It's an endeavor by man and therefore always political. The question for the EPA is indeed if we follow the mainstream scientific view what are the likely outcomes for the environment and the country.

Quote:
The entire incident may be innocent, but has all the hallmarks of a setup
I concurr! If we are to let science guide political action this fails that sniff test with flying colors. The situtation was a political game. Which we've seen some here decry but on the other hand embrace when it's their team playing the game.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 13:46:39
#94 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Dandy

Quote:
Every combustion process generates heat.
We're burning oil at a large scale, which developed from ancient trees, that were grown by ancient sunshine. So what we're doing presently comes indeed close to lighting a second sun
You stirred an idea here. Something I've not seen much research into is the heat we are generating ourselves. When we burn oil or coal we're adding heat into the environment, along with gases. What would happen if we could cut CO2 out of the equation? Would the world continue to heat as we continue to add heat by generating energy?

Quote:
Given that more and more developing countries (India, China, ...) jump on that "burning fossiles train", it should be clear that this has the potential to lead straight into a catastrophe,
Roughly 3/4 of the world does not enjoy the lifestyle of the first world (Europe/America) nations. I think what you're getting at here is that it would be catastrophic if the other 3/4 of the world suddenly duplicated the first world's use of the planet. I think this would be a difficult feat in reality due to the economic difficulties of this switch.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 16:17:14
#95 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@BrianK

Quote:
You stirred an idea here. Something I've not seen much research into is the heat we are generating ourselves. When we burn oil or coal we're adding heat into the environment, along with gases. What would happen if we could cut CO2 out of the equation? Would the world continue to heat as we continue to add heat by generating energy?


That's not so difficult. The last time I looked the radiation from earth was 0.85 w/m² less than the radiation received, approx 30 times the total energy generated by humanity, I've read. Pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is like moving the volume control on your audio amplifier - a tiny signal at the input end gets a vastly bigger output at the other end - a question of feedbacks perhaps?

I'm unsure of the current status of measurement of the radiative budget as the satellites put up for the job originally have been retired and while there are several others doing related jobs I suspect the one that was to take over may have been the one that did not make it into orbit at the beginning of the year. Perhaps someone else can clarify whether or not the info is being gathered at present?

Noel

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 19:19:22
#96 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
False and unprove accusations. If some other blog somewhere had a similar topic, well no suprise there as this got big news in the USA.
So it is a coincidence that you use the same senseless claims as Schmidt on UnRealClimate...

Quote:
It's odd to see you arguing that the EPA should somehow accept a paper that has not met the assessment of the scientific community. I'd think you'd not want to give politicans, EPA, the right to accept unvetted 'science'.
It is not odd to see you not knowing what happens in you own country. EPA decided that comments on the CO² endangerment were public (ended June, 23). The comment by Dr Carlin should thus be as acceptable as any comment by anyone else no matter what thinks Schmidt BrianK.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 20:11:41
#97 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@BrianK

Quote:
Your claim was the a quote was a 'mere invention' (Post #76). The act of inventing is an active and conscious process of creation.
So it is my opinion that, until one gives me a link confirming the quote is, in its entirety, from Peisner, they have invented/fabricated an incorrect citing consciously.

Quote:
One is 'told' one is 'email'.
No. The whole § (from the original source) is as follows:
------
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...Quote:
Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.

— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

Read Benny Peiser's response to Media Watch's questions.
------
So the 'told' obviously refers to the 'EMail'. And there is no such quote from Peisner in the EMail: so invention.

Quote:
So am I thanks. Do we get a secret handshake?
In which aim?

Quote:
Crichton is not a quality scientist.
No one has stated he was (he is dead btw) a scientist, only he had scientific background.

Quote:
Reading Crichton for scientific accuracy is absurb.
Again no one has said that.

Quote:
Have you actually read him?
Most of what has been translated. Interestingly many of his books include a section with scientific literature: it is somewhat rare for an author to give his sources but underlines an openness that some, calling themselves scientists in climatology, should mimic.

Quote:
Ignorance is bliss...
Certainly true for junk claims...

Bye,
TMTiFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 20:59:50
#98 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@TMTisFree

Quote:
So it is a coincidence that you use the same senseless claims as Schmidt on UnRealClimate
Since I haven't read the article you mention here, and assuming your claim to be true, then yes.

Quote:
So the 'told' obviously refers to the 'EMail'
Your arguement is fair to infer and note I did accept this as 1 case.

However, depending upon the outcome of the error your inference may well be wrong. One case 'told' might actually be told and the incorrectness would be any to an email relationship. Another case the 'email' in reference might well be a different email that they failed to link properly. In either of these cases the error would be related to incorrect citation and not produce an incorrect quote. Meaning yes the paper really is withdrawn.

In order to determine if your inference is an accurate representation we must be able to exhaust all other possiblities.



 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NoelFuller 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 21:55:28
#99 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2003
Posts: 926
From: Auckland, New Zealand

CO2 Fertilisation? Ouch!!

"Global food security in a changing climate depends on the nutritional value and yield of staple food crops. Researchers at Monash University in Victoria, Australia have found an increase in toxic compounds, a decrease in protein content and a decreased yield in plants grown under high CO2 and drought conditions. The research, to be presented by Dr Ros Gleadow on 29 June 2009 at the Society for Experimental Biology Annual Meeting in Glasgow, has shown that the concentration of cyanogenic glycosides, which break down to release toxic hydrogen cyanide, increased in plants in elevated CO2. This was compounded by the fact that protein content decreased, making the plants overall more toxic as the ability of herbivores to break down cyanide depends largely on the ingestion of sufficient quantities of protein.

"Data have also shown that cassava, a staple food crop in tropical and subtropical regions due to its tolerance of arid conditions, may experience yield reductions in high CO2. Combined with an increase in cyanogenic glycosides, this has major implications for the types of crops that can be grown in the future if CO2 levels continue to rise: "We need to be preparing for the predicted reduction in nutritional value of many plants in the coming century by developing and growing different cultivars which, for cassava in particular, may not be easy' says Dr Gleadow."

June 29, http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/06/29/new.crops.needed.new.climate

Source: Society for Experimental Biology http://www.sebiology.org/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
TMTisFree 
Re: Global warming Volume 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2009 22:21:31
#100 ]
Super Member
Joined: 6-Nov-2003
Posts: 1487
From: Nice, so nice

@NoelFuller

Quote:
The last time I looked the radiation from earth was 0.85 w/m² less than the radiation received
It appears you look at a number from a model output (which is -0.85 really: output minus input), the one from Hansen, 2005. The ERBE satellites did not exhibit such number as shown below:


The model of Hansen is the blue point at -0.85 (GISS). ERBE is about 5 Wm^-2, demonstrating that output is higher than input.

Quote:
approx 30 times the total energy generated by humanity, I've read
You quote a number with a power unit, now you mix it with energy when Dandy is talking about heat: confused you are.

Quote:
Pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is like moving the volume control on your audio amplifier - a tiny signal at the input end gets a vastly bigger output at the other end - a question of feedbacks perhaps?
Unfortunately your beginning analogy is deeply flawed as the real world ERBE data show that, as you lastly and rightly say, this is a question of feedback: ERBE (see picture above) points to negative feedback/low sensitivity when models are all forced for positive feedback/high sensitivity. So what is right, tweaked model or 20 years of satellites data?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle