An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, ok Flint.

[Flint]

Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo. By way of example, the same way that some creationists hope to maintain their own status quo, IE strict Biblical interpretation, and subsequently attempt to discredit evolution research by exaggerating the disagreements among some researchers, or by focusing on the things that are not yet fully understood. Sound familiar?

Let me spell it out for you: my comment was that there appears to be a parallel, in methods, among those who attempt to discredit a branch of science which threatens their particular status quo. I felt this was worthy of comment, in this thread. If you feel this is unworthy of comment, then don't comment on it. Just move on and keep your childish jabs to yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why don't you keep your childish anti-religion agenda to yourself.
Is it because it so consumes you, it's impossible to consider any situation/problem without it affecting your position, I don't know.

[Flint]

I find your diatribes against me to be as unseemly as they are unsubstatiated.
Resorting to personal insults and "mind-reading" is bad form, in any setting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In that case I apologize from the bottom

[skysidhe]

You didn't do anything Bruce.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I watched the Nova show on Super Volcanos again and picked up on something new. They were talking about extrapolating temperatures from the oxygen-18 in the ice cores that I referred to earlier in the thread. They said not once but several times, the temperatures were not of the air, but the oceans. If that's true, it makes a big difference because the oceans don't vary nearly as much as the air and change much slower. I've got to look into this.

[Hippikos]

Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo.

There was no discredit, there's only a different opinion. Those who are skeptic about man's influence on climate change are usually the ones who get discredited, especially by those wo have a political agenda.

Having said this, it does not exclude that I'm fully aware of the limitation of the Earth Resources.

[Hippikos]

it makes a big difference because the oceans don't vary nearly as much as the air and change much slower. I've got to look into this.

That's what I said 5 pages ago:

There's another thing, air temperature varies much more than water or ground temperature. I've never seen statistics with these parameters?

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...I apologize from the bottom

Hmmmmmm...is that like Homer presenting his rebuttal?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

That's what I said 5 pages ago:

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd like to know whether that 420,000 year graph was actually indicating ocean temperature rather than air. It may be, they think they can extrapolate both from the ice cores and did so for different projects.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd like to know whether that 420,000 year graph was actually indicating ocean temperature rather than air. It may be, they think they can extrapolate both from the ice cores and did so for different projects.

Bruce, you underestimate the importance of ocean temperatures. While the media seems to give more time to air temperature, it is actually the ocean temperature that interests us more. Ocean temperatures can be directly linked to precipitation over land.

BTW, I had a lengthy discussion with our senior scientist about you yesterday, and our on-going debate about global warming. I explained that you are a very smart guy, and an engineer, and that you want to see "proof" that Man is involved in global warming. He said that there isn't any research that on its own actually says: "Man, you did it", which is pretty much what I tried to tell you once. You have to take all of the research and draw conclusions based on the bulk of evidence. He said that no one so far has been able to come up with a single experiment that will prove or disprove man's impact. That is how we work - how science works. You have an idea that you want to test, then design an experiment to test your theory.

In one your posts you said that the world has been warming since the last ice age (12,000 years ago). I was reminded that in fact this is not correct. Air and ocean temperatures climbed to a height at about 10,000 years ago, and then gradually declined again. This continued until around 140 years ago when temperatures started to climb again. This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.

We also talked about the ozone hole over Antarctica. Did you realise that it is now at its second largest size? This also affects the Earth's climate.

If you want to satisfy your engineering need for complicated equations, have a look at this page. It discusses ocean currents in the Pacific.

Here is a great Google resource for finding sites that look at global change. If you dig deep enough you will also find pages that discuss why reflection (reflectivity), is not as simple as some people have made out in this thread. There are many factors that interact, and by chopping down trees you do not automatically reduce air temperature because more sunlight is being reflected. You have to take into account the loss of the transpiration by the trees that no longer exist. Sorry if that sounds like double Dutch, but there is actually a complicated mathematical formula for working out the likely temperature change of a cleared area (we use it in our models).

I hope you will begin to see that we are not idiots. We don't publish papers with dire warnings just for the fun of it. A lot of work (and I mean a *lot* of blood, sweat and tears), goes into each and every research project.

[Aliantha]

What Uni are you associated with Dave? What's your field of study? Just curiousity here. A lot of what you've said correlates with what my husband keeps telling me. He's with UQ.

[tw]

For those who don't first learn facts before knowing why, your executive summary is the last paragraph.

Quoting one who says global warming problem does not exist:

Originally Posted by caranddriver.com

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse.

You gave credence to a clearly distorted and naive editorial. But then you quoted another:

Originally Posted by Lindzen

On neither ground – independent justification or climatic relevance – is Kyoto appropriate.

xoxoxoBruce quotes naysayers who disagree with a large and growing majority. Why ignore those from responsible science?

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.

Lindzen promotes ideas not supported by facts. You quoted someone from the Cato Institute and then insist he is not political? A word is credibility.

You quote Lindzen's congressional testimony whose former co-authors will no longer collaborate with him and who even took him to task, point by point, in the WSJ. You completely ignore congressional testimony from responsible scientists independent of political organizations? Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate
You call selective sampling credible? It's called a political agenda.

xoxoxoBruce - your author conceded that CO2 increases will double to levels never seen in earth’s history. Then he denies this is a problem. He says, a warmer earth then radiates more heat; therefore does not get warmer. You accept this nonsense? His own peers don’t. CO2 levels can quadruple and everything will be fine? This is your expert? Yes, xoxoxoBruce, you cite political type from the Cato Institute as an expert. Even his own co-authors publicly dispute his new agenda.

Your own citation - Lindzen - even tried to claim that money for dissident science - science that George Jr promotes - is drying up. Anyone with trivial knowledge knows that is a lie. George Jr – who perverts science for a political agenda – would deny money to those who promote his agenda? Of course not. But then you cited this Cato Institute ‘scientist’ as the only expert. Again, credibility and honesty is not in your first posts.

When asked where you got numbers, you said,

From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony;

That's it. You cite someone from a right wing political organization as science proof? Why do you ignore reams of congressional testimony from those who come from science – not a political organization? Such as Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate and others.

xoxoxoBruce - you openly derided whether global warming would create more methane releases. Why? You doubted. That’s it? Doubt without first collecting facts is sufficient for logic? Where is prerequisite science – what one grasps before doubting? Did you notice why I accurately doubted Saddam’s WMDs long before an invasion? Did you learn why George Jr’s claims of a Saddam / bin Laden conspiracy were obvious myths in September 2001? Did I just wildly speculate that the administration was hindering 10th Mountain in Afghanistan - and therefore why we did not get Osama bin Laden? I first learned facts. Your citations were mostly political agendas hyped as if science. - without first learning facts. Even your Nature citation was nothing more than a letter. Where is the peer review of a letter? Again, credibility.

You immediately doubt that temperature increases also increase methane. Post #49 Your assumptions about methane says everything about where your doubts of global warming come from. Why do you doubt without first learning facts? Why do you doubt only because of White House propaganda – especially when this president – an MBA - is one of the world’s most prolific liars? When do you question irrelevant and clearly speculative numbers in a caranddriver.com editorial? Questioned was not that editorial. Questioned was why you cite a political statement as science? Questioned is why you have opinions and could not even spend $40 for the Scientific American issue. Questioned is why you have so many conclusions and yet would not even sit in a library long enough to read only one science publication. My post challenged (and without any insult) – credibility.

.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I posted it to see if someone could shoot holes in the numbers. Instead of ranting, why don't you tell us what's wrong with the numbers?

I told you what was wrong with the numbers. Its credibility. Numbers you posted don’t come from science, are taken out of context, or make claims not previously heard – at least in science. Years ago, I posted a highly regarded chart – which you eventually acknowledged. Meanwhile you posted contrary to a chart that was provided days previously. After promoting myths contrary to that chart, you finally conceded to those numbers:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce on 5 Oct

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist. I don't see any chart,

You ignored facts because short posts were too long to read? You ignored real world numbers but posted nonsense from caranddriver.com ? Then post an insult (bullshit artist) only because you did not first learn facts? Remember that chart of 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hrs? More denial:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce on 6 Oct

TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart,

Even Lindzen of the Cato Institute does not deny numbers in that chart. Numbers that show something happening in the past 100 years that has never before happened on earth. Eventually, even Bruce acknowledged the Vostok chart has long been a basis for scientific discussion. But how long did it take to get him to accept reality? Again, so many posts (including the ‘bullshit artist’ insult) rather than first learning even numbers on that Vostok chart.

xoxoxoBruce quickly cited Lindzen as credible. But the Vostok chart? Six days and 61 posts later … xoxoxoBruce finally acknowledged data from a 1980s Vostok chart. Meanwhile Lindzen credibility even among his own peers is what? Cato Institute.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

What I glean from all of this is that the planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,

Again, a statement not possible if using data of 20 years ago and when we add data to what xoxoxoBruce’s chart does not show. Current CO2 levels go well off that chart – CO2 is rising that fast and is that far above any previous numbers. Temperature changes rose a massive 0.8 degrees in 100 years; 0.4 degress in 30 years; and the curve is rising faster – as CO2 numbers predict. Increases that took tens of thousands of years suddenly increase in only 100? How does mrnoodle say, “planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,”. Only a mental midget president – who would go to CA for money as a Category 5 hurricane kills in New Orleans – would also make that statement. Make claims and never read the PDBs - or numbers in a chart. One would have to be George Jr stupid to believe nothing has changed. Even Lindzen from the Cato Institute admits to massive changes only in the past 100 years.

From Editors of Scientific American:

... the Bush administration's impulse on global warming has been to wait for "something to turn up" - say the discovery of plentiful, noncarbon fuel or a technique to eliminate greenhouse emissions at low cost. Global warming has never been the priority it should be.

Is that from Scientific American a political agenda? Obviously not. Demonstrated is where xoxoxoBruce’s doubts come from. From political sources masking as science, from an editorial that makes little science sense, by ignoring mainstream facts, by repeatedly denying the Vostok chart (even insulting the messager), and by not even spending $40 to get one issue of Scientific American dedicated entirely to the topic.

Mankind is clearly contributing to a major global warming problem. That is not disputed – except by wacko politicians such as scumbag president’s lawyers. Only question is “how much and how destructive”. Having so successfully made this personal by posting insults (bullshit artist) rather than facts, xoxoxoBruce did just what an anti-American president wants everyone to do. A mental midget needs us all to pervert science for his political agendas. Science has long since moved on to ask “how much and how destructive”. This thread demonstrates why so many in The Cellar believed a lying president’s WMD myths and that Saddam was complicit in 11 September. Too many don't demand the irrefutible fact before jumping to conclusions. xoxoxoBruce has just done that - even assuming a political figure from the Cato Institute would be honest.

It’s called knowing only because Rush Limbaugh, et al said so. That is why Americans are dying in mass numbers, now, in a country declared "Mission Accomplished". Science first demands the numbers and learning the whys – what Limbaugh types fear – such as data from the Vostok chart posted 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. That date and time in this thread demonstrates how long some will deny facts and numbers to believe political myths – six days and 61 posts.

[Hippikos]

This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.

This corrolation is unproven*. The fact that it started at the same time doesn't mean it was caused by the industrial revolution. How can you explain the sudden drop in temperature between the 40's and 70's (scientists predicteda new ice age those days, remember?) when Industrial Activity was a zillion times higher than a century before?


(*another corrolation: 70% of school killers use chewing gum, therefore it's proven that chewing gum causes school killings...)

We also talked about the ozone hole over Antarctica. Did you realise that it is now at its second largest size? This also affects the Earth's climate.

It's another natural phenomenon.

PS: The only evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick theory, which has been declared dead by now.