|
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185
|
fact 1: temeprature has not been rising sice 1998
fact 2: co2 levels have been rising
conclusion : the conclusion of global warming due to rising level of co2 is wrong.
if it was 1 or 2 years, but this has been over a decade...
what more proof do you need?????
|
What more proof? Positive and negative controls, for starters.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 12:55 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:32 TanGeng wrote:On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. Or just screw the entire economy up. But we can hand wave our way through that. No world = no economy... I think some things are more important than others?
What? How did you get to "no world?" Is this some derivative of Cheney's "one percent doctrine" except applied to global warming?
|
On November 22 2009 12:12 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 12:00 Maero wrote:On November 22 2009 11:55 ggrrg wrote:
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm] It's actually impressive that you managed to link this to USA-bashing somehow. Fantastic job. As for all the e-scientists here, who are you guys? Particularly those with the insights into the peer-review processes; could you go ahead and elucidate the process for me so I can compare your versions with how it's worked in my experience? Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the US. Been there, lived there for an year and I met many nice people there. However, the US has the worst, most biased and often enough intentionally misinforming media coverage in the world (probably beaten only by the media in North Korea and Somalia...). In the US, corporation interests are omnipresent and business influence is so extremely strong that it heavily affects media, politics and eventually people's way of thinking. Nowhere in the world I have seen anything like this, and I've come around quite a bit...
lol you rate the us just above north korea and somalia that's cute.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 12:55 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
1. Define the question
... why is Earth heading up in unprecedented rate? *check!*
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
... done, by multiple means and fairly congruent by the majority of the scientific community. *check!*
3. Form hypothesis
... we are screwing up our planet. *check!*
4. Perform experiment and collect data
... lets be wiser and in our use of natural resources and see what happens.
... ... but, that takes money and we people have to do work... no more air condition!? How sure are we that global warming is real!?
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
This is pretty much how I interpret every argument against global.
[[EDIT]] Also my original post was not to prove or disprove global warming, but to state the fairly obvious that our actions are damaging the planet and this will affect us.
Ahhh yes, but political theater is far more complicated than that. Let's just present one of the possibilities of what may have happened.
1. Define the political enemy
... those coal companies and their union workers *check!*
2. Identify an activity that could be detrimental the rest of the politic
... they pollute with lots of ash and sludge but they also put a lot of carbon dioxide into the air. *check!*
3. Fund scientists to provide evidence for...
... those coal companies are screwing up our planet with their carbon dioxide. *check!*
4. Get evidence to scare the politics.
... see those coal companies were really really evil.*check!*
5. The monster is loose
... other people take notice and start getting really scared as well.
...... more people grow alarmed and people start pouring money into. Politicians ride the wave of alarm and look for potential possibilities of power grabs.
It's not like environmental damage isn't a problem, but carbon dioxide would be the least of our problems there. If countries could just eliminate a lot of the suburban sprawl and concentrate the population in cities, the human population would wreck a lot less damage than it does now. Incidentally a lot less energy would be used transporting people between cities and suburbs and solve part of the carbon dioxide issue.
-- seems to be an unpopular proposal though.
|
Wait, so you want to create even more population density in cities?
Just trying to get your argument straight, here.
|
On November 22 2009 11:44 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:36 WhiteNights wrote:On November 22 2009 11:31 Cloud wrote:
Oh what a wonderful idea 'peer reviewed articles', as they are as free as oxygen and corruption is inexistent in the scientific community. Every field has bad apples, but an entire field of bad apples is unheard of. Possibly, but in this case the field is highly manipulated. If you dig into the link I provided, you will realize that the entire field is being given false data, so naturally they will arrive at false conclusions.
Are you telling me that climate scientists don't know about the divergence problem and were misled by other climate scientists? Or that climate scientists misled the public?
On November 22 2009 11:44 fight_or_flight wrote:
Much of the recent evidence was based off of data that wasn't public. Why would they not release the data for so long? When the data was finally released, we learn that it was all based off of 12 tree cores, even though much more data was available.
The data was taken in the 1980s. The original, unprocessed source could have been on five inch floppies or tapes for all we know; do you have a five inch floppy reader?
Anybody who has access to the Washington Post, The Telegraph, or The Australian has heard this, and for those that don't, anybody who has ever looked at a temperature record has seen it too. In addition, if you take any temperature reading and find the best-fit line to the last ten years, it goes up anyway, so this isn't true - but even if it were down, you can find many series of years in the past where the temperature declined - start at a high year, end at a lower year, WOW, global warming stopped in 1950, 1970, and 1990 too!
On November 22 2009 13:59 Maero wrote:
Wait, so you want to create even more population density in cities?
Just trying to get your argument straight, here.
A city dweller has less environmental impact than a suburb dweller.
|
I have a very unique perspective on this climate issue because of my educational background.
For my undergrad I studied geophysics and had a ton of interaction with the geology and environmental science departments at my school. There were some incredibly influential professors who backed the "global warming being man-made" idea and 99% of them thought we were doomed.
Now I'm doing my graduate work in Petroleum Engineering and all the professors here are convinced that "green" shouldn't be a priority and that mankind will have the technological means to fix this issue should it ever become a problem.
I'm curious to see how both sides of the spectrum take this news. 
|
On November 22 2009 12:55 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Well science is usually performed by the scientific method, lets take a a gander of what we currently have:
1. Define the question
... why is Earth heading up in unprecedented rate? *check!*
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
... done, by multiple means and fairly congruent by the majority of the scientific community. *check!*
3. Form hypothesis
... we are screwing up our planet. *check!*
4. Perform experiment and collect data
... lets be wiser and in our use of natural resources and see what happens.
... ... but, that takes money and we people have to do work... no more air condition!? How sure are we that global warming is real!?
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
This is pretty much how I interpret every argument against global.
[[EDIT]] Also my original post was not to prove or disprove global warming, but to state the fairly obvious that our actions are damaging the planet and this will affect us.
Science is not settled on either a warming or cooling, on it being man-made or natural, or even if it can or needs to be changed. Following through with one possible conclusion while ignoring all the other myriad possibilities is not science, it's agenda.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 13:59 Maero wrote:
Wait, so you want to create even more population density in cities?
Just trying to get your argument straight, here.
Isn't that better than suburban sprawl? We can even see the problem in urban sprawl. So let's just pose a simple question:
Does Los Angelos manage its 12 million people better or does New York handle its 20 million people better? Which city has more traffic?
|
|
|
On November 22 2009 14:24 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 13:59 Maero wrote:
Wait, so you want to create even more population density in cities?
Just trying to get your argument straight, here. Does Los Angelos manage its 12 million people better or does New York handle its 20 million people better? Which city has more traffic?
Actually the comparison shouldn't be between which has more traffic (as this only explains number of vehicles on the road), but should be comparing how well the city's inhabitants can get around. Urban development is a hell lot better than suburban sprawl. Problem is that it's the "American dream" to own a big house with a lawn, so local politicians encourage suburban development to win more votes.
|
|
|
That tree ring data is inaccurate after a certain age is no cause for alarm. I wrote a paper using a constructed data set and experienced a lot of these same problems... Namely that higher-resolution data sets tend to have the property of reduced longevity. Thus what is often done is to superimpose more recent, high-resolution data with older, lower resolution data from ice cores, etc...
Usually some calibration is required at the edges, but overall the data is pretty solid.
|
There is quite a mouthful here.
First thing to note "scientific consensus on climate change" can be spoken about with varying degrees of certainty. If one is only to count papers that disagree with the assessment "humans are the most significant source of twentieth and twenty-first global warming" and count only papers dealing with this issue, and "Energy & Environment" is not a reputable journal, then you're left with far far less. The vast majority of papers in the link deal with secondary issues, such as An Inconvenient Truth, CO2 lagging temperature change, mortality estimates, permafrost, acidification, climatic cycles, the IPCC, and Kyoto, have nothing to do with this premise.
Most other parts of the "scientific consensus" such as "rising temperature leads to rising sea level" similarly only have a small handful of disputations and thousands of confirmations.
Putting all of these together, which probably contend for a few dozen wildly differing statements, including many statements that are not consensus such as "Kyoto was perfect" and "more tornadoes", along with a lot of papers that don't challenge the consensus such as "CO2 has lagged temperature in paleohistory" or "climate cycles exist" and a lot of papers from E&E, you can scrape together 450 total.
Excellent.
|
Hmm... I've seen comments in this thread claiming conflicting things about the temperature change over the course of recent decades. Ignoring which direction the temperature is said to be going in, people are making claims about the existence of man-made global warming based on analysis of this planet's history. However, there is no way know what the temperature should be if humans weren't here. That is to say, we have an experimental group (this planet) but no control group (this planet without humans, this planet without fossil fuels, etc.).
So, it could be that while the temperature is going up, it would be going up just as much if humans weren't burning fossil fuels. It could also be that the temperature is going down, but it would be much lower except for man-made global warming. In this case, to draw conclusions solely from the experimental group with no control group to compare to seems absurd.
That being said, there's plenty of reasons to "go green," and plenty of reasons not to, that are purely based in health and economics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of information getting to the general public in the US:
News companies, like every other for-profit company in the US, are just that. They're for profit. They exist to make money. Therefore, they will do whatever they can without fabricating evidence to win people's attentions. Taking quotations out of context, misleading headlines, presenting only part of the data, and most importantly, being memorable. They don't want people to say "I saw on a bunch of channels..." or "I saw on some channel...," they want people to say "I saw on (insert news channel here)..."
Applying this to global warming, every time something comes out in conflict with the last big break, every news source wants to be the first place you see it, the most recent place you last saw it at any given time, and the most memorable place you see it. Thus, with this story, news corporations bombard the population with "Global Warming is a Hoax!" If some new data comes out that predicts that the Florida beaches will all be under water within the next 100 years (which could also be caused by erosion), the headlines will scream something like "Global Warming: The Impending Catastrophe!"
Also, it should say something about the US news sources in general that so much of their time is devoted to the latest celebrity scandal, wedding, house purchase, etc.
|
On November 22 2009 09:17 Vedic wrote:
There is clear and obvious intent to hide information, if you read some of it. The files are still on torrents/rapidshare/etc, if you want to read them.
Link please?
|
On November 22 2009 11:38 TanGeng wrote:
Really? what about the comedy of errors in the financial markets? How do all financial institutions in the world make the same stupid mistake at the same exact time?
Haven't read the rest of the thread. You ask a very interesting question. There is one explanation commonly accepted.
The people controlling the financial institutions were acting in their own self interest, and not in the interest of the firm they were controlling.
I personally do not find this to be a particularly satisfactory explanation for such a massive failure on such a massive scale. It's been pretty common talk in society lately, that CEOs get excessive salaries and that they don't act in their firm's interest. This is not limited to the financial sector. Perhaps some CEOs can get away with making decisions bad for the company and good for themselves, but not even close to "many" and absolutely not all. What is different here to make the systems that have been in place to check up on CEOs so suddenly fail, not in a number of isolated cases, but so massively?
I'd be much more interested in an explanation that can explain the global failure in terms of the prisoner dilemma. In case you don't know what that is, I'll explain it here briefly.
A murder has been committed by two people. The police is pretty sure who the murderers are, but doesn't have enough evidence to jail them. Fortunately, the two commit a minor crime allowing the police to arrest them.
The police offers the prisoners the following deal: we know you committed that murder. We just don't have enough evidence to convict you. If you confess and your accomplice doesn't, you will go free as crown witness and we will jail him for ten years. If you don't confess and your accomplice does, we will jail you for ten years and he will go free as crown witness. If you both confess, I don't need a crown witness, and you'll both go to jail for eight years. Finally, if neither of you confess, then we can only jail you for at most two years for the minor crime we convicted you on.
If both prisoners act in their own interest, they will both confess, giving a total jail time of 16 years, the worst possible "group" result! However, each of their individual results is better than if they didn't confess.
The primary error of banks was lending too much money out. Maybe if every competitor is lending out too much and too easily, then you have two choices: lend out unsafely as well or lose a lot of money because of a disadvantaged market position. If nothing happens, then you are better off than before because you lent out unsafely - you were able to keep you market position. If something happens, it will happen to all the other banks too, so you are still able to keep your relative market position.
If that's how it works, then banks that follow the aggressive lending strategy are more likely to get a dominant market position than banks that follow a less aggressive lending strategy, just because of the way our banking system is set up. And that, in turn, makes it inevitable that the banking system is going to fail, the worst possible group result.
|
On November 22 2009 15:02 WhiteNights wrote:There is quite a mouthful here. First thing to note "scientific consensus on climate change" can be spoken about with varying degrees of certainty. If one is only to count papers that disagree with the assessment "humans are the most significant source of twentieth and twenty-first global warming" and count only papers dealing with this issue, and "Energy & Environment" is not a reputable journal, then you're left with far far less. The vast majority of papers in the link deal with secondary issues, such as An Inconvenient Truth, CO2 lagging temperature change, mortality estimates, permafrost, acidification, climatic cycles, the IPCC, and Kyoto, have nothing to do with this premise. Most other parts of the "scientific consensus" such as "rising temperature leads to rising sea level" similarly only have a small handful of disputations and thousands of confirmations. Putting all of these together, which probably contend for a few dozen wildly differing statements, including many statements that are not consensus such as "Kyoto was perfect" and "more tornadoes", along with a lot of papers that don't challenge the consensus such as "CO2 has lagged temperature in paleohistory" or "climate cycles exist" and a lot of papers from E&E, you can scrape together 450 total. Excellent.
I don't consider this a convincing argument, but I would like to see how you interpret it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/IPCC Numbers are Wrong.pdf
And please, try harder than "funded by ExxonMobile" or other trash
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
