backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Aug 29 at 3:11 PM

More news you'll never read in the major media about climate change

As I pen this article, I'm packing for vacation-- an extended cruise through the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, in the very peak of this year's hurricane season. Am I worried? Not in the least. Storm activity is well below normal, with the season half over and not one single hurricane yet formed.   How is this possible, with our SUV emissions supposedly worsening storm activity year after year? The answer is more news the media will never tell you.

Being published in next month's Geophysical Research Letters is an article entitled Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean. Its conclusions are astonishing-- that, from 2003 to 2005, the world's oceans cooled dramatically-- enough to erase over 20% of all warming experienced in the last half-century. How is such rapid cooling possible, despite steadily-increasing levels of carbon dioxide? Even more shocking is that no one knows, not even the authors themselves.   How can global climate models be so wrong?

Some climate researchers have a possible answer, though it flies in the face of the sacred cow of environmental alarmists-- the belief that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity. Their suggestion is that the worlds oceans-- which hold many dozens as much CO2 as the atmosphere-- may be driving atmospheric CO2, and not vice versa. That when the ocean warms, it releases CO2, and that if it continues to cool, it will absorb more and (gasp!) eventually reverse the trend.

This should be welcome news, since it means we don't have to revert to a stone age culture to stop global warming...but you'll never read about this in Time Magazine. Not unless they can scare us into believing humans are causing another ice age.

Wait, they already did that once.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Playing Devil's Advocate....
By AmpedSilence on 8/21/2006 12:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
This can be argued that the global warming that humans are causing is causing the glaciers to melt, which in turn is lowering the ocean's temperature. So, even though the ocean's temperature is lowering; its an indirect result of global warming! Ha! the alarmists have the spin they need!

Like I said in the subject, playing devil's advocate. I actually don't believe most things about global warming. We just dont have enough data. 100 years of data, or say even 1,000 years of data is just not enough for a planet that has been around 3 billion years+ (3.3 ^10-7%). You cant base conclusions on such a small sample.




RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Information can be drawn from a wider date range than you suggest through samples of ice and looking at the composition of rock etc.

There is no evidence that, what the scientists have suggested has happened before, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is also no evidence of global temperatures rising as quickly as they have. Therefore it seems obvious that we are doing it. Many are saying that this is media scare stories, but then ask yourself a question. Why? what do they have to gain exactly, indeed what do governments have to gain by imposing enviromental legislation which is potentially damaging to their respective economies?

Besides how can you judge the melting of ice causing falling sea temperatures as 'spin' i'm quite sure scientists believe it has happend before.

And also another point, even if their theories are correct, there will come a point where the melting reaches a critcal point, as there is not enough ice to reflect the sunlight, which will mean temperatures will rise regardless, and sea levels will rise slightly.

No matter how hard you try you cant deny that it is us that is contributing to climate change, and, in the long term that this is a bad thing. It would also have been nice to see some actual data within the blog too to support your claims.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 1:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no evidence that, what the scientists have suggested has happened before
Sorry, but the earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. CO2 levels have also gone up and down many times before. We know for a fact the ice caps have been melting slowly for almost 10,000 years. You want to blame that on us also?

quote:
Many are saying that this is media scare stories, but then ask yourself a question. Why? what do they have to gain?
More sales for one. There's a wider agenda as well. If you want to know what it is, check out any Green Party website.

quote:
what do governments have to gain by imposing enviromental legislation
Governments are made up of politicians, which do one thing and one thing only. They cater to voters. If the voters believe in global warming, the politicans will vote accordingly.

quote:
No matter how hard you try you cant deny that it is us that is contributing to climate change
Where's the science to prove this? Just because you want to believe it?


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 1:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but the earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. CO2 levels have also gone up and down many times before. We know for a fact the ice caps have been melting slowly for almost 10,000 years. You want to blame that on us also?

you took the whole quote out of context.

There is scientific proof showing we are accelerating (being the key word) global warming. I do not deny that it has happened before, just not at this speed.

I find your points regarding media and political agendas laughable in the extreme.

'I know we'll say the world is warming up to sell more newspapers thus making the electorate vote for enviromental legislation which will harm economic growth which may harm there job security' It doesnt make sense. You'll also find that 'green parties' have marginal support at best, regardless of the country because they are, simply, nutters.

I previously though like you but i have seen evidence to proove these theories, so no, its not because i want to believe them, i do because there is scientific evidence to do so.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is scientific proof showing we are accelerating (being the key word) global warming
No there isn't. There is evidence that the earth has warmed faster than anytime in the past 1000 years. Big whup-- thats not even 0.0000001% of the history of the planet..and most of that period the planet was in or recovering from the Little Ice Age anyway.

quote:
You'll also find that 'green parties' have marginal support at best, regardless of the country because they are, simply, nutters
You and I agree here. The people who believe strongest in the dangers of global warming are "nutters".


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
There is evidence that the earth has warmed faster than anytime in the past 1000 years. Big whup-- thats not even 0.0000001% of the history of the planet..and most of that period the planet was in or recovering from the Little Ice Age anyway.

no looking at rock samples etc they can see that it is faster than any other period after ice ages.

The people who believe strongest in the dangers of global warming are "nutters".

Likewise the people who believe it isnt happening at all are.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Look it up yourself. The research was for the past 1000 years only. And going back more than 400 years even the scientist themselves admitted the evidence was very shaky.

erm i've seen many a documentary on this matter and scientists can analyse data from a greater timespan than you suggest. They have found frozen mamouths for gods sake, and they are certainly more than a thousand years old, therefore they can look at CO2 levels within the ice etc.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:21:42 PM , Rating: 1
They have found frozen mamouths for gods sake, and they are certainly more than a thousand years old, therefore they can look at CO2 levels within the ice etc.

First you're talking about temperature now you're talking about CO2 levels? If you want to make wild claims about either one, you need more proof than saying "gosh I saw it on a documentary once". Especially since you seem to keep changing what exactly you say you saw.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Please can you tell me what your on about because i'm lost now.

Yes, i am on about temperatures. I have been since the beginning, and you certainly cant deny that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere means higher temperatures.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
you certainly cant deny that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere means higher temperatures

From 600 million years ago to 10 million years ago, CO2 levels were higher then than they are today. Yet we had many ice ages in that period. Higher CO2 levels do not neccesarily mean higher temperatures. And they certainly don't tell you the rate of temperature change.

You were claiming we're seeing a faster rate of temperature change than ever before. I've asked you several times to provide proof for this nonsense and you keep ignoring the request. What are you afraid of?


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
From 600 million years ago to 10 million years ago, CO2 levels were higher then than they are today. Yet we had many ice ages in that period. Higher CO2 levels do not neccesarily mean higher temperatures.

You have to take into account other environmental factors that were present at these times too, such as volcanic activity, etc.

I give up on you. Theres no point in posting facts when you'll simply rubbish them. Indeed i am growing weary of replies to these blogs which put simply say

'yeah! we can burn as much petrol in our SUVs as we want'

you are meerly looking for dodgy scientific proof to justify your way of life.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
You have yet to post any facts, just your own opinions. We keep asking for links and you keep ignoring us. This article has facts and links both, and you choose to ignore them and call the work of respected scientists "dodgy" just because it doesn't agree with your cherished beliefs.

How typical. How sad.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By doctor sam adams on 8/22/2006 1:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You and I agree here. The people who believe strongest in the dangers of global warming are "nutters".


And George Bush (and Party) is somehow better? The people who believe in the dangers of "WMD" manage to cause as much trouble of their own. OMG, can you imagine if SUVs had fuel efficiency standards! OMG, if the liberals had their way, you'd be only allowed to pull it out of your driveway with a team of horses.


By therealnickdanger on 8/22/2006 1:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And George Bush (and Party) is somehow better?

Funny how whenever people have no facts or anything of interest to add to a discussion, they fall back on bashing Bush... regardless on whether he has been brought up or not.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By My Croft on 8/21/2006 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
The article didnt say the cooling was from melting ice. Are you just saying what you want to hear?


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry i was responding to the blog, not your post


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2006 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Try clicking on hyperlinks, theres all the data.

quote:
And also another point, even if their theories are correct, there will come a point where the melting reaches a critcal point, as there is not enough ice to reflect the sunlight, which will mean temperatures will rise regardless, and sea levels will rise slightly.

Alright, come on now, someone is taking movies too seriously.

Now for the record, there is nothing obvious about us causing global warming, stop listening to the slanted media. What we have is rising temperatures. Now back in the 70's we had dramatically dropping temperatures and they were screaming Ice Age almost weekly. It was basically a 180 degree flip of this situation. We were cooling very fast, now were warming very fast, and just for kicks I figure ironically we'll be hearing about another Ice Age in say 2 or 3 years.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, come on now, someone is taking movies too seriously.

it is geological fact! I suggest you go look it up

Now for the record, there is nothing obvious about us causing global warming, stop listening to the slanted media. What we have is rising temperatures. Now back in the 70's we had dramatically dropping temperatures and they were screaming Ice Age almost weekly. It was basically a 180 degree flip of this situation. We were cooling very fast, now were warming very fast, and just for kicks I figure ironically we'll be hearing about another Ice Age in say 2 or 3 years.

Please look at data concerning the overall trend of temperatures in the last 1000 years.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is geological fact! I suggest you go look it up
If its fact, you look it up and post a link. I've never seen any story claiming the ocean is cooling because of melting ice.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm rather busy at the moment. I'm sure a quick google search will furnish you with such details.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm rather busy at the moment
How typical.

Did you even read the source article? The chart showed the cooling wasn't anywhere near the north or south pole. Around the poles the ocean was actually slightly WARMER. So much for melting ice. Its right there in full color. Read it, and stop injecting your own wishful thinking into the argument.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
I did read the data, yes.

I dont think you read my post. Where did i say that i believed it was the melting ice caps causing the reduction in sea temperature?




RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By chasch on 8/21/2006 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
Where did i say that i believed it was the melting ice caps causing the reduction in sea temperature?

Right when you said this:

"how can you judge the melting of ice causing falling sea temperatures as 'spin' i'm quite sure scientists believe it has happend before. "

Then followed up with a long and inaccurate theory about how, even if melting ice was causing temperatures to drop, it couldn't continue forever.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, i said scientists believe it has happened before. Did i say i believed it was happening now?

Then followed up with a long and inaccurate theory about how, even if melting ice was causing temperatures to drop, it couldn't continue forever.

no, i didnt.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
i also wasnt talking about melting ice accounting for the change in temperature.

I was talking about how ice reflects sunlight


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By ttowntom on 8/21/2006 2:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is, the ice in the Antarctic seems to be growing as the Arctic is slowly shrinking. Even if this wasn't true, we could cover the entire South Pole in aluminized mylar (which reflects more sunlight than ice) for much less money than implementing Kyoto would cost us.

When you realize that, even if the global warming nutcases are correct, things like Kyoto won't do anything except slow it down a tiny fraction of a percent, it really points out how silly the debate even is.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 2:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, to a certain extent, although i think such policies, like Kyoto can slow down warming more than you give it credit for, but then thats just an opinion and is open to debate.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2006 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Unlikely. Compared to nature, we output maybe 0.5% of the "warming gases". Kyoto could possibly drop down to to 0.3% which when talking such small percentages is a moot point. Want a real solution? Go plant a tree. Which even sarcastically, planting trees would probably help more than cutting emissions.


RE: Playing Devil's Advocate....
By Merry on 8/21/2006 3:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
*plants tree* ;0)


By AmpedSilence on 8/21/2006 3:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
First thing, I did not claim a single thing in this post. All I was trying to say is that the people who believe in global warming will find a way to spin it there advantage.

I agree with your statement that looking at ice and rock samples will give us a wider breadth of data, but I disagree with yor conclusions from that. Assuming that we extend my previous example from 1,000 years to 1 million years, that is still 0.00003% of the life of the planet. Now that we have 365 million data points (365days/year * 1 million years), let's make another assumption; that the actual temperature curve over time is a sin curve. Since we are talking about the history of our planet and those 365 million data points represent the 0.00003% of the total curve, lets apply those data points to between 0.0 and 0.00003. Regardless of what regression analysis you do, you are going to get probably a straight line. Which when looked at from such a small prespective, it will point to either a cool down or a warm up, and a probably a quite drastic one.

This is just a thought experiment because, you really cant get an average temperature for each of the last million years. Your use of ice can give you general idea of what the temperature was, but not truely exact readings. Kinda like how tree rings can tell how good or bad the growing season was, just not the exact number of inches of rain that fell.


Just out today...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2006 9:21:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191...




RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/22/2006 10:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
You give one idea and the article gives another...

"The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities , which have aggravated the situation further," he said. "


RE: Just out today...
By My Croft on 8/23/2006 10:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
The article says:

quote:
the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year...[there was] a three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930..."
That's pretty clear that the melting is caused primarily by natural warming.


RE: Just out today...
By ttowntom on 8/23/2006 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
The article also says the fastest rate of melting was seen from 1960 to 1985, which means its slowed down since then. Funny, since our CO2 levels are higher now than they were then.


RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/23/2006 3:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why funny, it's pretty common that within a trend you find small intervalls that contradict the trend.

They also say that it takes over 10 years to a increase in temperature be reflected on the ice, and that since 95 the speed of the melting has been increasing.


RE: Just out today...
By ttowntom on 8/23/2006 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lol you call 21 years a "small interval", then turn around and try to claim a tiny increase in melting the last 10 years is significant? Especially when the final rate is still slower than it was 50 years ago?

You can't deny the facts. The glaciers started melting long before we began driving cars. We didn't cause it.



RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/23/2006 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
You from a small interval started making conclusions whereas I just pointed what is written on the article...

"The glaciers started melting long before we began driving cars. We didn't cause it."
I never said we caused it, I'm saying we contribute for it.


RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/23/2006 3:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
hmm and where did I say otherwise?... I've just posted all the causes they pointed on the article, including one saying that we are contributing for the melting.


RE: Just out today...
By ttowntom on 8/23/2006 7:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
The research study didn't say we we contributing to the melting. The research simply showed glacier melting began at least 125 years ago, and that Greenland warmed dramatically in the 1920s, and somewhat less so in the 1990s.

One of the study's authors (who is a glaciologist, meaning his field of expertise is solely glaciers, and not atmospheric sciences) in an interview with a reporter speculated the melting is being aggravated by global warming. But the research doesn't prove that, quite the opposite in fact.


RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/24/2006 6:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
hmm so you're telling me the researcher speculated quite the opposite of what the research proves... give me a break dude.

BTW his field is glaciology and unlike you say the glaciology does include atmospheric sciences.

From wiki "Glaciology is an interdisciplinary earth science that integrates geophysics, geology, physical geography, geomorphology, climatology, meteorology, hydrology, biology, and ecology. The impact of glaciers on humans adds the fields of Human geography and anthropology".


RE: Just out today...
By ttowntom on 8/24/2006 11:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
you're telling me the researcher speculated quite the opposite of what the research proves

No, his research proves glaciers started melting long before humans could have possibly exerted an influence. His research suggests the human impact is therefore somewhere in the range of small to nonexistent.

He speculates that the actual effect still exists. This is not the opposite of what his research proves, but it is in opposition to what the research suggests. The difference between "proof" and "implication" is pretty clear.

BTW his field is glaciology and unlike you say the glaciology does include atmospheric sciences.

Dentists go to medical school also. But when you need brain surgery, you don't go see a dentist, now do you?


RE: Just out today...
By Strunf on 8/24/2006 5:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
“No, his research proves glaciers started melting long before humans could have possibly exerted an influence. His research suggests the human impact is therefore somewhere in the range of small to nonexistent.”
No his research dates from the end of the 19th century up to today, just right at the same time the Industrial Age started, so you cant conclude the glaciers started melting before we could influence it, that’s clearly not the propose of it, if it was they would have started from before the 18/19th century. Other studies show an increase of the melting speed since the 60s... anyway I don’t say we are the number one cause of the melting, however I don’t have any doubts we contribute to it, by how far I don’t know.

“Dentists go to medical school also. But when you need brain surgery, you don't go see a dentist, now do you?”
Bad example dentistry and neurosurgery work on two independent fields; you could very well be a dentist without knowing anything about the brain and the other way around. Glaciology on the other hand requires the knowledge of other sciences; I find it hard to believe that you could explain anything about the glaciers if you don’t take into account many factors that are covered by other sciences like the climate and so on.


RE: Just out today...
By interl0per on 8/27/2006 8:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
concern for global temperature trends are pretty much washed away when it rains acid all day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.st...


By psychobriggsy on 8/21/2006 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 3
If work on reducing emissions from cars and industry continues, for whatever reasons, then it will result in cleaner air which we can all agree is far nicer to live in.

Climate models are very hard to do, and they've been improving them for dozens of years and they're still very basic compared to reality. Sadly the media also only feeds us the 'interesting' news. For all we know two years of OTT hurricanes took a lot of energy from the tops of the oceans, or accelerated meltwater from the artic/greenland is having a cooling effect currently. The graphs in the article show that the cooling is not evenly spread - many areas got warmer. There could be other climate cycles in play too.

This isn't aimed at the author, just at people in general: jumping on every little thing (however kooky, like that abiogenesis post the other day) that doesn't correlate with the combined wisdom of people (that have spent their entire careers working, researching and learning to master) in order to justify a certain lifestyle of consumption that you don't want to have to give up, or even alter slightly is rather weak. Sure, challenge them if they're being very closed to new ideas (sadly a problem in some scientific circles) but respect the findings of the majority.




By chasch on 8/21/2006 11:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
Lowering carbon dioxide emissions won't lead to cleaner air. And the hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to even moderately lower CO2 is money that could be spent on lowering emissions that really ARE harmful.


By Strunf on 8/21/2006 7:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
lol Go tell that to the guys that lived around the “Industrial Revolution” age, ya sure they are all dead by now but just look to the paintings they left us and tell me the CO2 and its close friends don’t contribute to the air pollution.


By ttowntom on 8/21/2006 10:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
No clue what you're talking about here. CO2 is a colorless, invisible gas. Do you think people were painting pictures of it? When you explain that, maybe you can tell us what "close friends" you think it has too.


By bobdelt on 8/22/2006 7:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
You couldnt be more right. Most people don't know the difference between CO2 and smog. A friend of mine bought an ethanol car thinking he is lower his emissions, not knowing they produce even more smog than a regular auto.


By Strunf on 8/22/2006 10:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
hmm I know what smog and the CO2 are, what I mistook there was the CO2 with the smoke from a combustion...while the smoke has CO2 what we see is the water vapor, ashes...

Are you sure ethanol cars pollute more than the gasoline ones?... the articles I've read about it state the exact opposite. And you have to take into account that the plants used to make the ethanol took the CO2 and others from the atmosphere so when your car later starts emitting CO2 you aren’t polluting but just taking part on the CO2 cycle.


By ttowntom on 8/23/2006 10:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is the Clean Air Act requires carmakers to burn fuel cleaner, which increases the amount of CO2 they emit.

And yes, ethanol fuels increase smog. They reduce carbon monoxide, but they increase VOCs and NO by an even larger amount. The EPA and CARB have both done studies to confirm it.


By ttowntom on 8/21/2006 11:14:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
respect the findings of the majority...
The majority of scientists believe the earth cooled slightly from WW2 to the 1970s, then warmed slightly from then to now.

The majority do *not* agree on whether this is mostly due to natural or human causes or wehether or not it will pose a serious problem for the future.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2006 1:29:36 PM , Rating: 1
> "For all we know two years of OTT hurricanes took a lot of energy from the tops of the oceans..."

Some basic thermodynamics here...a hurricane is no different than any other heat engine. It can't destroy it, it can simply move it from one location to another. A hurricane exchanges heat energy from surface waters to slightly deeper ones, and from lower latitude waters to higher ones. Neither of these two processes will lower gobal mean temperatures of the top 2000 meters of ocean waters...they just redistribute it slightly.

> "or accelerated meltwater from the artic/greenland is having a cooling effect currently..."

To account for the degree of cooling observed would require an amount of icewater large enough to raise ocean levels many meters. Furthermore, such cooling would tend to be concentrated in arctic regions, when we see almost the exact opposite.


MIchael Asher's motivations
By dluther on 8/22/2006 9:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know what drives Michael Asher to constantly and consistently perform such a disservice to the readers of this site by posting any and all counterclaims to the "global warming" debate, no matter how peripheral or anecdotal they may be.

Global warming is happening. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide are in agreement with the general principles of "global warming", that the earth is on a long-term warming trend, and that the causes are largely man-made.

In essence, the debate about global warming, its causes, its effects, and what can be done about it, is not happening in scientific circles, but rather in countless circles like this, where people like Michael Asher (masher2) constantly express opinions based on a periphery of knowledge and propaganda. Yes, there is a small yet vocal minority of scientists that claim global warming is all a bunch of hooey, but by that same token there is also a small group of scientists that debate the theory of gravity.

That the oceans have cooled this year is not in question; it is both a welcome relief and astonishing bit of good news in a trend that is anything but. Michael seems hell-bent on blaming the "media" as being a singleminded harbinger of doom in this area, although to his credit he has not allowed his postings to degenrate into a liberal vs. conservative diatribe.

Global warming *is* happening. The Keeling Curve remains unchanged, and projections of CO2 emissions are following prescribed forecasts. The deleterious effects of CO2 on the environment are well documented and available to anyone who cares to look them up. These are facts, and are not debatable except by those who are either uninformed, misinformed, or have a specific agenda contrary to the prescribed changes necessary to curb and hopefully reverse these effects.

Michael Asher's motivations behind these posts remain unclear. That he's chosen a technology forum to air his opinions on the environment does a disservice to the readers of the forum, and I for one am starting to grow tired of reading about it.




RE: MIchael Asher's motivations
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2006 9:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In essence, the debate about global warming, its causes, its effects, and what can be done about it, is not happening in scientific circles

On the contrary, this is one of the most hotly debated areas in all science. To the average laymen, who doesn't regularly read research papers, it may seem otherwise...but that is simply because most media outlets selectively choose which papers they report, and which researchers they quote. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to read any issue of Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Atmospheric Science, Nature, Science, or any other such publication. Most are online; you can peruse them at will.

To say that "global warming" is in dispute, one must first define the term. Yes, the globe has warmed by 0.6°c in recent years. If you define global warming on those terms, there is no debate. However, if you define global warming as the belief that the warming trend will continue and lead to potentially disastrous effects, and is primary the result of human emissions, then there is no consensus at all. The total size of the anthropogenic signal is still hotly debated, and may not even exist. If it does, it is certainly a fraction of the overall warming trend.

Furthermore, the effects of increased warming are also in serious scientific dispute. Since GW primarily warms the coldest regions of the earth, it tends to moderate temperatures, increase growing seasons, and exert other beneficial influences. Some models even predict lessened tropical storm intensity, as hurricanes are not driven as by raw temperature as much as temperature differentials...and GW acts to reduce the temperature differences between the tropics and temperate regions.

The observational evidence doesn't support conclusions of dire effects either. There is no increase in storm strength or frequency, there is no increase in droughts, floods, heat waves, or other such calamities. Sea level rise is not accelerating, and is continuing at the same slow pace of a few millimeters/year, just as it has averaged for the past 70 centuries. Some computer models predict these events...but as of yet, they still cannot explain past history, much less accurately detail future trends.

Most laymen don't realize human emissions of CO2 are a fraction of one percent of what nature creates naturally, year after year, for many millions of years. Most laymen don't realize that CO2 is one of the weakest of all greenhouse gases, and pales in comparison to something as simple as water vapor. They also aren't told that, since it absorbs in a narrow band of the infrared only, has a maximum warming effect no matter how high the concentration rises, a maximum small to be easily overwhelmed by variations from other factors. They're not told CO2 is not a harmful pollutant, but rather is the most important natural airborne fertilizer. They're not told that higher CO2 levels means increased plant growth and therefore higher crop yields around the world. They're not told that CO2 levels have been as much as 2,000% higher in the past than they are now, and that they have naturally risen and fallen dramatically throughout the life of the planet.


They're simply told CO2 is "bad". The scientific community isn't engaging in such outright deception...the mainstream media is.

And that, sir, explains the motivation behind my posts.


RE: MIchael Asher's motivations
By dluther on 8/22/2006 11:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Michael,

To say that global warming is is a hotly debated topic in scientific circles only demonstrates how ignorant you truly are on the subject. There is a general consensus within the scientific community on the esistence, cause, and effects of global warming. Yes, there is a very vocal minority of climatologists and geologists that argue the existence, causes, and effects of global warming. However this minority is an extremely fractious group due to many factors ranging from questionable research methodology to differences of opinions on origins. This discrepancy is to be expected -- there are scientists who debate the theory of gravity being a function of mass, whereas the general scientific community has no such debate.

The "hot debate" does not exist in scientific circles, it exists in political circles because the prescribed changes recmommended to curb the effects of global warming can be economically disastrous. One should not confuse political debate with scientific debate. Saying things like "[laymen are] not told that higher CO2 levels means increased plant growth and therefore higher crop yields around the world" only serves to further cement your ignorance on the matter because you're again using a peripheral study that shows Ponderosa Pine trees may benefit from increased levels of CO2, discounting the findings of other studies that clearly demonstrate that, while crops exposed to higher concentrations of CO2 may be more productive, the nutritional value of that produce will be lower [New Phytologist].

Of course CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas being emitted, but it is one of the major contributing factors to the global warming trend. Coupled with human intervention in the natural ability to absorb CO2 in the form of massive and increasing deforestation -- well, you do the research. We are *measurably* dumping billions of tons of CO2, methane, nitrates, SOx, NOx, and hydrocoarbons ino the environment every year, and to blithley assume that our environment can sustain such a barrage without ill effect is extermely self-servedly ignorant.

Most of the journals you cite do not contradict global warming theory and its man-made origins. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its third report that "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" and "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."


RE: MIchael Asher's motivations
By chasch on 8/22/2006 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Posted earlier to DT:

quote:
The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause . Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."...

It is signed by 60 scientists, several of which were on the IPCC panel you like so much to quote.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s...


By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2006 2:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "to blithley assume that our environment can sustain such a barrage without ill effect is extermely self-servedly ignorant..."

Unfortunately, the "barrage" of CO2 from mankind is a vanishingly small fraction of the amount of CO2 emitted naturally. If the globe can survive a billion years of Mother Nature's far higher emissions, it seems logical our much smaller contribution won't cause any disaster.

Even a brief glance at the Keeling Curve you cite makes plain that mankind is not the primary culprit for CO2 increases. Today, the globe produces well over twice as much manmade CO2 as it did when Keeling first began his measurements. Yet the rate of increase has only up slightly. Why? Becaue the majority of the increase is natural in origin...just as it was in so many past periods of history, where CO2 levels rose to levels far above current values.

> "Most of the journals you cite do not contradict global warming theory "

Journals do not support or contradict any theory. They publish research papers. In this and previous blogs, I've posted links to just a few of the large number of papers which contradict the layman's view of global warming as a looming catastrophe caused by mankind.

> "you're again using a peripheral study that shows Ponderosa Pine trees may benefit from increased levels of CO2"

No, I'm using basic biology, born out by countless research studies. CO2 is an airbone fertilizer; higher levels lead to increased plant growth...just like any other fertilizer.

Faster growth causes, for many species, a slight decrease food value per unit mass. This is true regardless of whether that faster growth is due to increased CO2 or more fertilizer on the ground. Yet we still fertilize our crops. Why? Because that very slight decrease is vastly outweighed by the increased yield by acre.

Furthermore, higher CO2 levels allow most species to use water more efficiently. That means lower irrigation requirements, and the possibility to grow crops where we now cannot. Yet another fact that is well-known by biologists, but never quoted by the media.

> "One should not confuse political debate with scientific debate..."

Exactly so. Which is why, instead of quoting politically charged bodies like the IPCC, I only quote actual scientific research.


RE: MIchael Asher's motivations
By rrsurfer1 on 8/22/2006 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Just to address the content of these blogs - I don't feel Michael is doing a disservice by blogging about these issues. On the contrary, I've learned a lot from his posts, and associated source articles, concerning this topic. I also feel the media does not give fair coverage to both sides of the issue.

I think the facts lie somewhere in between. And I think regardless of global warming, we should be looking for alternative forms of energy simply because of the political effects of oil, and our relations with countries that produce it.

I don't think we should spend a whole lot of money to lower emission of "greenhouse" gasses by a miniscule percentage. Rather, this money would be better spent researching alternative means of energy production.


RE: MIchael Asher's motivations
By interl0per on 8/23/2006 5:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming is a straw man that ignores and diverts attention of local pollution concerns.

The air is bad here in Pittsburgh most days and i don't like the looks of it. The fish in the river are inedible. There is a list provided of the minimum safe intake with the purchase of a fishing license.

This is really about the strive for efficency or the unregulated industrial status quo.
The black cloud of deisel exaust is a beautiful thing to very few people. The price of fuel will force a new frugality.
The debate on global warming is not easily addressed by working people. It's for scientists to assert and politicians to refute.

The Vice President derides conservation of energy. Maybe he had a talk with Michael?


The Truth
By R Nilla on 8/21/2006 10:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
I have really enjoyed these posts about what is ACTUALLY happening with the weather - or I should say, at least, what most scientists actually theorize. I'm tired of all the "we're destroying the environment" fodder when no one truly knows this to be the case. Kudos on this and the Global Warming post in the spirit of anti-alarmism!




RE: The Truth
By interl0per on 8/21/2006 4:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we all prefer political alarmism and the clear conscience to expand our appetites.

We will need to revert to stone age living conditions?
No, it's better to continue getting fat.

Smokestacks cost a lot to build and maintain. Can't we just burn all that stuff on the ground and in the open?
Seems like a waste to me.

Enjoy your programmed 'vacation' and don't forget to mind the timetable. The ship will leave without you if you linger.


RE: The Truth
By Merry on 8/21/2006 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Enjoy your programmed 'vacation' and don't forget to mind the timetable. The ship will leave without you if you linger.

shame.....</wit>


RE: The Truth
By Strunf on 8/21/2006 7:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your point... there's basically 2 types of guys, the first type looks left and right before crossing the street and the second that... well they just cross it.

Don’t think I’m saying here we are all doomed, I’m just saying that it’s as dumb to think that we are all doomed as it is to think we don’t interfere with the world all...


RE: The Truth
By R Nilla on 8/22/2006 10:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don’t think I’m saying here we are all doomed, I’m just saying that it’s as dumb to think that we are all doomed as it is to think we don’t interfere with the world all...
Agreed. I doubt we are free from blame, but I think it's important not to jump to conclusions or create false dichotomies. I don't think it is appropriate to proclaim doomsday (however attractive it may seem as a motivational tool) but I also don't think this means we should burn through our natural resources like there's no tomorrow, especially when we don't know how this behavior is affecting our environment.

Moderation is key, especially when we aren't clear on the consequences of our actions.


RE: The Truth
By TomZ on 8/29/2006 3:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moderation is key, especially when we aren't clear on the consequences of our actions.

On the other hand, why worry, and spend billions of dollars, on hypothetical problems that may not even exist. I can think of a lot of better uses for the same resources.


assuming?
By kattanna on 8/21/2006 11:27:34 AM , Rating: 5
so at the bottom of page 5 they are "assuming that the heat was not transported to the deep ocean". nice.

then they go on to talk about it evaporating into space as a possible means.

maybe they need to look over their map again. the cooling is very pinpoint, albiet on a large scale, and not very broad as would be expected with an atmospheric to space evaporation. much more likely that unknown deep ocean currents are bringing up cold water to bring about those cooling spots.

also from looking at the dispersal map, 2 year heat content change pg 11, it appears that the areas with the wildest flucuations appear in close proximity to each other. Which leads me to believe ocean currents are at work here.

hopefully they will continue to add sensors to increase resolution and at lower depths. so little is known about our oceans at the upper layers, and even less as we go down.




here's a theory...
By jimeco on 8/22/2006 12:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
What if this is all part of a balancing mechanism in nature. Humans are producing large amounts of CO2 and polluting the earth'S atmosphere. So "Mother nature" needs to level it out by absorbing it into the oceans. I have no idea how something like that would work, but I bet that if our scientists (or Time magazine) look hard enough, they could find a "reasonable" explanation for it ;))

Greetz




By hstewarth on 8/23/2006 2:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was global warming,and that this season hurricane season will be just as bad as last year. In really it could be mildest seasons on record. No huricans and 4 tropical storms ( if you can count the the first one )

Now they stated cooling oceans.

Just obmit unless its normal, they believe its because of global warming.. Earth goes in cycles and people including environmentalist need to understand that.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki