Reply With Quote
Bull .
From Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.
Time to unpimp your argument:
from the Univ. of Colorado:
Oh, snap!White is particularly interested in rapid climate change. The evidence he has uncovered suggests that temperature fluctuations sometimes occur as abrupt es, rather than gradual trends.
White’s research team has studied ice samples from the Siple Dome core in Antarctica to deduce that air temperatures there rose up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit in just a few decades as the last ice age began to wane some 19,000 years ago, the largest and most abrupt warming e ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.
Bull .
From Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate," Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.
Me and my buddy Chris Landsea? Are you capable of having a coherent discussion Dan?
I'm going to ask you a direct question and I hope you can answer it directly.
What do you consider a better source for scientific information: Wikipedia or an academic study?
For general scientific information (consensus), I would consider Wikipedia to be a better, though obviously much less than perfect, source. Individual academic studies will illuminate one small part of the picture (in the best case) or be totally useless if overly flawed.
Maybe the National Academy of Sciences knows something.
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate
Manny just got pwn3d
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 03-28-2006 at 06:32 PM.
Wikipedia is a horrible source. It is open to change at any point and need not be verifiable. It's only advantadge over any other source in this regard is its readability.
Individual academic studies that deal with the rise of the global mean tempature or simillar subjects now illuminate one part of the picture? Well, considering the picture IS the rise of the the global mean tempature thats prety damn silly.
Let me know the next time a scientist cites wikipedia in any way for information. That includes the NAS.
What are you smoking? And how does "less perfect" cons ute as "better"?
Thats from your page Spurster. The report seems to be a collection of other studies, but it doesn't come out and say that global warming is caused primarily by humans. Perhaps the NAS does know what its talking about.examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity.
The first one was in the 90s, and there have been a handful (i think, but definitely not too much more) of studies showing a direct link of the species extinction to climate change.
The first one was a south american endemic frog that laid its eggs in shallow water
Whats also funny, is that most of the climate change and global warming studies are examining impacts on the earth later in the next century because thats when the warming will reach levels to effect things.
HOWEVER, now the recent ice melt and recent hurricane seasons are a result of this same climate change? Right.
And the study showed that the endangerment of this species was directly related to human greenhouse gas emission or the rise in the past centuries tempature? And can you like them?
Gotta love sources that anyone can change.This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link (with a few minor exceptions such as protected articles).
No it linked it to raised temperature which in turn dried up the high al ude ponds. I thought u said just linked to climate chang.
I can't hyperlink to it cuz I don't remember the name of the frog, and since I'm no longer a ut student, I can't access the databases anymore.
Manny, one thing I never understand about what you have against the current anthropogenic theory(s) is that you always claim the IPCC to be biased, non objective, and their evidence to be bull .
It's common knowledge that the IPCC was formed by the UN, and I'm sure you do know how it really works (as opposed to the marriots in here) [basically no policy makers have any say in the report, but the final report they receive is summarized from about 10k pages to 10.]
What I still don't get is how you can call them non objective or their results bull , then rely on other studies like meteorlogical ones, or even studies showing nonanthropogenic global warming, when the fact is that the PHD's that wrote those studies are in an overwhelming minority.
If you call the people that do the climate reports biased, its just the same as us calling any study or any researcher biased. I guess it's possible for an overwhelming majority of every scientific body from every country involved in the IPCC to be biased, but if thats the case, then it's even more plausible to say any other study against the current anthropogenic theories is equally or more biased.
CBF, there have been several scientists who have been members of the IPCC - such as Chris Landsea - who have quit because of the way things are carried out. Thats why I consider them biased.
But a scientist is only working on a certain part of the IPCC study, and not every direction of study in the IPCC is involved with determining anthropogenic causes to the warming effect.
I just read up on this guy--he worked on cyclones, which could be all of 5% of the total assessment. Dr Landsea has a legitimate beef with the IPCC if that HArvard doctor did politicize his findings, but you realize he did not quit because of the methods, data, or assessment analysis of the data itself right?
After the assessment is written, anything can be done with it, it can be used politically for anything....I don't agree with what Dr. Trenberth did....but the huge ass do ent itself is reviewed and rewritten and worked on by such a sheer number of scientists in loads of fields, that to say the IPCC itself it biased is tantamount to a conspiracy theory imo.
It would take just ONE of them to come true, and it's "bye-bye humans".
Wouldn't it be just a little bit sane to try and mitagate potential risks and reduce emissions?
We have insurance for the same reason: risk mitigation.
I think it is merely good sense that we take some steps to limit the effect we are having on our climate, as the "downside" of extinction is a bit more severe than giving up a little economic growth in the short term.
Man... if you want to die because it gets 3 degrees warmer, that's your problem.
Me?
I'm gonna be fishing for redfish in Boerne, wearing sunblock and drinking beer.
How about a study linking CO2 to species extinction?
Research in Pacific shows ocean trouble
Acidity rises, oxygen drops, scientists find
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER
Seattle PiResearch fresh off a boat that docked Thursday in Alaska reveals some frightening changes taking place in the Pacific Ocean.
As humans are pumping out more carbon dioxide that is helping to warm the planet, the ocean has been doing yeoman's work to lessen the effects -- but it's taking a toll.
Scientists lower 36 bottles used for water sampling from the deck of the Thomas G. Thompson while doing research near the equator.
Over time, the changes could have an impact that ripples through the food chain, from microscopic plants that can't grow right to salmon and whales unable to find enough to eat.
The Pacific is getting warmer and more acidic, while the amount of oxygen and the building blocks for coral and some kinds of plankton are decreasing, according to initial results from scientists with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, the University of Washington and elsewhere.
"There are big changes," said Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for one leg of the research trip, which ultimately traveled from Antarctica to Alaska.
Many of the most interesting results are tied to the ocean becoming increasingly acidic because of its absorption of carbon dioxide.
"You don't have to believe in climate change to believe that this is happening," said Joanie Kleypas, an oceanographer with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a non-profit organization based in Boulder, Colo. "It's pretty much simple thermodynamics."
And it's alarming.
"Acidification is more frightening than a lot of the climate change issues," Kleypas said. That's in part because the process is hard to alter.
"It's a slow-moving ship, and we're all trying to row with toothpicks," she said.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Over the past 200 years, the ocean has absorbed about half of what's been released into the atmosphere.
Sabine and the other researchers found that in the past 15 years, there's been a detectable decline in the ocean's pH, which is a measure of acidity ranging from zero to 14, with zero being most acidic (water is neutral, or pH 7, while seawater is about pH 8).
The pH of the sal er has dropped 0.025 units since the early 1990s. The number seems unremarkable, but the pH scale is exponential, so a one-unit drop is a 10-fold decrease. The new measurement also puts the ocean on track for a dramatic decline by the end of the century.
Plankton -- tiny plants and animals that live in the ocean -- are among the creatures that could be harmed by the change. In addition to the water becoming more acidic, the extra carbon dioxide reduces the amount of chemical compounds used to construct coral and the s s of plankton.
"That's a major issue," said John Guinotte, a marine scientist with the Bellevue-based Marine Conservation Biology Ins ute who studies deep sea corals.
"You're likely looking at serious effects through out the marine food web across the board," he said.
Indeed. I posted simillar studies about Ocean PH in a previous climate change thread. If you want to talk semantics, this isn't climate change related but CO2 related but whatever. I made the pion before - and it stands out more now than ever - that people who want to see curtailed emissions should be fighting based on this rather than stupid doomsday sceanrios that may or may not occour. THIS is already happening.
Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.
Did I miss something? Seems to me that you've yet to prove conclusively that Climate Change and Hurricane strength are not inter-related. If you could do that, I'm sure you could do a lecture tour. In fact, all you've really manage to do is muddy the political water you so much complain about.Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.
As far as getting a response, well, since this thread is on page 4, I would say it's gotten a pretty decent response.
I think you don't quite understand where the burden of proof lies. And yes, this political forum is entirely indicative of the American political cross section.
Have fun, Dan. The intelligent people within this thread understand things. You on the otherhand, don't. I think I've remember why I post less and less in this forum.
Yeah, you can go to Alaska and they've got that one glacier you can walk up the ravine where it's receded and they have signs where it was in 'x' year......dating all the way back to ..........uhmmmm.....the 1800's. *cough*
Golbal warmon and berd floo ......RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!!!!
<begin rant>
There has been global warming ever since they've been recording temperature. The earth heats and cools in cycles. Surprise surprise.
People are fools. Every generation always thinks the world is coming to an end. Now, we're on this kick of it's our fault and by OUR'S I mean the US.
The fact is, the US did not, and never will or should sign Kyoto. Of the industrialized nations we are the only non-signatory AND the only nation that has reduced their emissions voluntarily, exceeding what Kyoto would have asked for. Every other major industrialized nation that signed Kyoto has failed to meet it's requirements.
Kyoto isn't about the environment. It's about redistrubuiton of wealth, requiring some countries to limit emissions while allowing others to double and triple their emissions. Developing countries can sell their emission credits to the industrialized nations therefor it becomes a system of taxation which is a system of redistributing wealth.
Kyoto has all to do with the environment and mankind has little to do with global warming. Further, who's to say global warming is bad. It could possibly open up a northwest passage and make development of the artic region a of a lot easier.
Oh yeah, the caribou...can't forget about the caribou....
Rather then being concerned about golbal warmon and berd floo I wish they'd stop fishing the oceans out, for example. I don't care what the temperature outside is, I still want to eat.
<end rant>
Seems to me that the reason you post less and less in this forum is because we don't just except your rants, especially as they relate to the weather or global warming, at face value like they do in the 'Boobs Club'. Someone calls you on one of your claims and you get all bent out of shape or worse yet you start demeaning them to make yourself feel superior. That's not an intelligent exchange of ideas, that's forum bullying. No one is saying, 'Ah, look at that Manny, he's an idiot', from what I've read CBF brought out some very good points concerning the IPCC study, Dr. Trenberth and Chris Landsea that you've completely ignored.
I think that's a false dichotomy. I believe a more reasonable dichotomy would be:
A) long-term damage to coastal infrastructure, and mass migrations of vulnerable populations
vs.
B) abandonment of the Industrial Revolution and return to subsistence farming.
If the anthropocentric global warming model is correct, curtailing CO2 emissions a little isn't going to reverse the trend. The warming trend began when the world population was much, much smaller, and the level of industrial activity was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
