IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New BullGore the Movie
[link|http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm|http://www.canadafre.../harris061206.htm]
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
snip now all this must be true Ben, it appears in the Canadian Press :-)
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
awaiting the attack from the religious econologicus
thanx,
Bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New No attack from me.
I've known for a while that the question of whether there is global warming is a fight between two groups of scientists claiming similar territory.

One group bases their theories on the predictions of computer models.

The other group bases their theories on the measurements of what has happened historically.

The two groups wound up at loggerheads, and are now solidly entrenched into their positions, data be damned. A computer model that suggests things aren't so bad is ignored while one that says they are is paid attention to. (The hockey stick is a good example of bad science spreading due to this theme.) Measurements indicating that CO2 levels change climate get ignored and you get grand claims like, on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun when we simply don't have direct measurements of changes of brightness of the Sun over a lot of interesting scales.

(BTW his example of 450 million years ago is very disingenous. Greenhouse gases only make a difference if the Sun warms the ground, resulting in infra-red radiation that can get trapped. But 450 million years ago the Earth was covered in ice, so there was very little infra-red being radiated for a greenhouse effect to work with. No wonder high levels of CO2 didn't make a difference!

The people who build fancy computer models get the attention of the press because, hey, computers are cool. Plus they are predicting disaster. Plus their work is easier to put in a nutshell.

I believe the truth lies in between. There is no question that greenhouse gases like CO2 affect the Earth's temperature. It is trivial to calculate what the temperature of the Earth would be without them and prove that they do make a difference. We're producing lots of them, and that has to have some (though possibly trivial) impact. But they clearly are not the only effect out there. Also most of the computer models are cack. (If you predict that the Earth is on the verge of becoming another Venus, then you need to explain why it didn't do so 5 million years ago when the Earth was a lot warmer than it is today.)

Cheers,
Ben
The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. -- Adolf Hitler
New was refering to the eurogogs :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Gah, read slashdot on this
[link|http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/06/14/209235.shtml|http://science.slash...6/14/209235.shtml]

The fact that the author is funded by Exxon is enough to limit its credibility. I'll shut up on causes of global warming unless I take time to look at the subject in more detail.

Cheers,
Ben
The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. -- Adolf Hitler
New oh, and who pays for the co2 advocates?
I like this quote from /.
'm sure there are oil companies dying for someone of repute to go against the tide and say they aren't ruining the planet.

But they have to just sit and wait for someone else to fund the study. Any study funded by an oil company, or even a subsidiary twice removed from an oil company will be automatically bashed for being "bought" by said oil company.
The other side does not have an agenda? Do they not intend to reap huge profits and salaries by scaremongering? Remember the movie is brought to you by a guy who flooded a creek with a few inches of water to float a canoe to make an environmental point.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Nobody is free of self-interest
Nobody is free of self-interest, and thus it is a good idea not to trust anybody blindly.

At the same time, I trust government scientists more then corporate ones. The person working for the government at least in theory is trying to find the best possible description of reality and their reputation and career are somewhat staked on being right. The guy working for a corporation has more to gain by producing a convincing answer that supports the corporations posistion.

Or to put it more directly. The government scientists might be wrong, but they are not usually intentionally deceptive, corporate ones often are.

Jay
New who directs government scientists? Politicians
I saw that many times in Alaska, Clintonian suits hardwalking on environmental studies that didnt support their position, then OMYGOWD when Bushites did the same thing an almighty furor broke out, go figure.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Not quite.
Saying politicians direct government scientists is like saying CEOs direct programmers. There's a connection, but it's very, very indirect. Don't confuse public policy statements with the work done by scientists.

I'm aware of incidents like [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&pagewanted=all|Hansen's]. And we know that scientists have biases just like everyone else. But good scientists aren't directed by politicians to find a particular result to support a particular policy. They're directed to investigate a problem and accurately report the results. Hansen's case, as I understand it, was a conflict between his appropriate role in reporting research results versus the perception that he was making policy statements for the government (something that isn't his role).

For example, the National Science Foundation funds [link|http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/progSearch.do?SearchType=progSearch&page=2&QueryText=&ProgOrganization=&ProgOfficer=&ProgEleCode=1530&BooleanElement=true&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=true&ProgProgram=&ProgFoaCode=&RestrictActive=on&Search=Search#results|climate research] even though the results may contradict the Administration's positions. It's similar in government labs. (Of course, politicians determine (in the broadest sense) what research gets funded. But they don't direct research outcomes.)

Cheers,
Scott.
New BLM in Alaska re-writing biology reports to suit the admin
clinton pro envirowaco any dissent written out and results suppressed, now stifling sensitive data on actual environmental issues.,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New That is why I said in theory
That is why I said in theory. The difference is that when the government manipulates science to get the answers it wants, it is recognized as wrong. When the corporations do the same thing, it is considered a good use of the advertising budget.

Jay
New Canada Free Press is most definitely not CP
Check out your cites before you use them; Canadian Press is an actual wire service, and has nothing to do with those guys.

Looking over CFP, I think the colours on the masthead pretty much tell my countrymen exactly what that website is all about.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New A less biased source of information.
This is an article reprinted at the [link|http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect16/Sect16_2.html|FAS] that talks about remote sensing of evidence for climate change. The original is from the [link|http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/|Remote Sensing Tutorial] from [link|http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/|NASA Goddard]:

Evidence for Global Warming:
Degradation of Earth's Atmosphere; Sealevel Rise; Ozone Holes; Vegetation Response

"Global change". "Greenhouse effect". "Global warming". The media are full of statements, concerns, guesses, and speculation about these phenomena, as scientists and policy-makers around the world struggle to address recent scientific observations that indicate human activities impact our environment. And yet, each of these is a "natural" phenomenon, as are many others. Hurricanes, droughts, and monsoons all occur without any control by humans, to initiate, forestall or moderate them.

We can learn about our planet's interacting physical systems by observing the results of such natural phenomena, and use our knowledge to explore human-induced changes. Consider, for example, the eruption of a volcano, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippine Islands in 1991, that happened without human intervention. This volcano had been dormant for more than 600 years.

[...]


There's a lot of information out there that indicates that the climate is changing and has changed over the last ~ 150 years. A good site that collects a lot of the scientific information relating to this topic is NASA's [link|http://gcmd.nasa.gov/|Global Change Master Directory]. The controversy is whether human activities are significantly contributing to the changes.

I'm reminded of a lepardism I saw again today. It seems to be from an apropos [link|http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/haunting-we-will-go-ron-bailey.html|source].

Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS\ufffd None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.


There's an awful lot we don't know about how the atmosphere interacts with sunlight and the Earth. Maybe man's activities have little to do with the changing climate, but a cautionary note was sounded on the [link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june06/globalwarming_06-08.html|NewsHour on June 8]:

Global warming 101

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, Wally Broecker could be wrong, but given the costs if he's right, let's suspend skepticism for the next 10 minutes or so and consider the origin of the greenhouse gases that may be warming the globe and what we might do about them.

First, where do the gases come from? Mainly, it turns out, from the carbon stored up in plants long, long ago.

You may or may not remember from high school biology that plants are fueled by photosynthesis, combining water and carbon dioxide with the help of sunlight.

ROBERT ELDE, University of Minnesota: It's a mixture of coal from Wyoming...

PAUL SOLMAN: So says Professor Bob Elde at the University of Minnesota's power plant.

ROBERT ELDE: The carbon that was captured by photosynthesis and is included in the coal was carbon that was in the atmosphere 100, 200 million years ago.

PAUL SOLMAN: So this is former plants?

ROBERT ELDE: Plant material, that's right.

PAUL SOLMAN: Compressed over the eons, fossilized into coal or oil. That's the simple chemistry behind global warming.

There's no more carbon on Earth than ever before; it's just that much of the carbon absorbed by plants over those eons was easy for humans to dig up and burn above ground to produce energy.

Unfortunately, the burning of carbon, C, combines it with oxygen, O, which resulted in, yes, CO-2, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So, the carbon that it took nature millions of years to bury is resurfacing a lot faster.


Whether or not man is causing the present warming, it can't be a good thing for huge quantities of carbon that were locked up in rock over millions of years to be dumped into the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.

Cheers,
Scott.
New point, what is the percentage of man made c02 releases
VS colcanic activity in the last 100 years, under .002%
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Let's see... 45 kB images.
[link|http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html|USGS]:

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.


[link|http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html|EIA]:
[image|http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%201.gif|0|Graph of Man-made CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration|262|411]

It looks like your numbers are off a little bit. It looks to me like we've been putting more than 130 million tonnes a year of CO2 into the atmosphere since about 1860. It's presently about 6.1 B tonnes per year (or volcanoes are about 2.1% of the anthropogenic CO2).

The next figure shows the circulation of carbon in the atmosphere, in B tonnes per year:
[image|http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/NewFlowFig2.gif|0|Carbon cycle in B tonnes/year|351|603]

The 6.1 B tonnes we add every year is a small percentage of the total available carbon. But note that the blue arrows are nearly in balance while the red (human activity) arrows are forcing things in a particular direction. Termites can knock over a redwood if they're persistent enough...

[edit:] A more detailed graph of the carbon cycle is [link|http://www.vitalgraphics.net/graphic.cfm?filename=climate2/large/11.jpg|here] (135 kB image). It doesn't include volcanoes (if they're really 130 MT/yr, they are too small a contribution to show up).

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott June 15, 2006, 12:16:43 AM EDT
New Mount st Helens was 02.% ?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
     BullGore the Movie - (boxley) - (14)
         No attack from me. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
             was refering to the eurogogs :-) -NT - (boxley)
             Gah, read slashdot on this - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                 oh, and who pays for the co2 advocates? - (boxley) - (5)
                     Nobody is free of self-interest - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                         who directs government scientists? Politicians - (boxley) - (3)
                             Not quite. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 BLM in Alaska re-writing biology reports to suit the admin - (boxley)
                             That is why I said in theory - (JayMehaffey)
         Canada Free Press is most definitely not CP - (jake123)
         A less biased source of information. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             point, what is the percentage of man made c02 releases - (boxley) - (2)
                 Let's see... 45 kB images. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Mount st Helens was 02.% ? -NT - (boxley)

Last minute panic is my Muse.
100 ms