Concerned about global warming?

[Charles2222]

I'm afraid it's residue from the AoW forum going thankfully belly-up.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Robot, if you don't like the thread, then why are you in it

As for millions of years?

God that has to be the lamest response I have seen yet.

Were you ever present in your geography classes at school?

Are you guys really that desperate to argue about 8.2, that you won't let a few of us take a breather with something else in here?

[Mangudai]

I read an alarming article in a Geographic a year or so back. We better start looking into the status of the world's underground auquifers. Because if the article was correct, we will be dealing with a lot of problems, and in our life times, not our kids.

Yeah, in the western great plains they water their fields from underground aquafers. They're being depleted faster than they are refilled. Eventually, there won't be enough water to maintain current farming methods. It could happen in our lifetimes.

Another thing which will happen (I don't know if it will be our lifetimes, but it might) is a magnetic pole flip. This is quite alarming. But just because you can't blame people for their polluting lifestyles, it gets much less attention.

The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is known to drop during "magnetic reversals", when the north and south poles swap places. Records of the field direction, frozen into sediments laid down on the seabed, show that the magnetic field has reversed hundreds of times in the past 400 million years.

In normal circumstances, the magnetic field protects the Earth's surface from dangerous high-energy particles, including particles from the sun and cosmic rays from deep space.

But as the field switches polarity, it can drop to below 10 per cent of its normal strength for thousands of years. Such a weakened field would allow lethal radiation to reach the Earth's surface, with potentially disastrous consequences for the atmosphere, the climate and particularly for life.

In a paper to be published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Guido Birk and Harald Lesch of the University of Munich, Germany, and Christian Konz of the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Garching report an investigation of exactly what happens when the field is drastically reduced or vanishes altogether.

Their simulations show that the solar wind - the million-kilometre-an-hour stream of hydrogen and helium nuclei from the sun - wraps itself around the Earth in a way that induces a magnetic field in the ionosphere as strong as the original field.

"We were quite surprised about its effectiveness," Lesch says.

The news comes at an opportune moment. The Earth's magnetic field is showing worrying signs that it is about to reverse again. Not only has the magnetic north pole wandered by 1100 kilometres in the past 200 years, but its strength is dropping at a rate of 5 per cent a century.

"This is the fastest decrease since the last reversal 730,000 years ago," Lesch says.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

What is worrisome about the aquifers issue, is it is global.

We might be heading for the mother of all shocking global crop disasters.

What is annoying, is the solution is so simple. Tell farmers to start using trickle irrigation. It returns a 25% crop yield increase, and it massively cuts back on water waste.

Yeah installing trickle based systems costs money. Seems everything costs money.

Well the money we dumped on farmers last year, is going to do squat for them this year. And it won't be able to do squat next year.
Money doesn't water crops, water does.
If we must dump money on farmers, at least tell them they can only have the money if they use it to save the water.
Otherwise, we might just as well burn the money.

[Mangudai]

Here in Illinois (and many other Eastern states) we don't use irrigation. We use drainage to get rid of all that extra rainwater. I'm surprised if you need irrigation in Ontario. You're right that trickle systems are much better than sprinkler systems that waste most of the water to evaporation. I was just out west, and much of southern Colorado is switching to trickle systems. Utah is still using sprinklers and they can't get enough water, with the 6 year drought they've been having. Most of Canada (with the possible exception of Alberta) should be fine with all the lakes you have. I heard Canada has 20% of the Earth's freshwater.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Ontario is indeed "wet".

But I was talking about the prairies. Ontario is not responsible for what is basically our nations crop wealth.

The only thing we grow in Ontario, is bugs trees and politicians. At least the trees are useful hehe.

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Kokoda

I find it incredible that anyone could read the history and qualifications of the authors and the status of the institute and then give this any credence (unless you believed it anyway, in which case - please have your debates elsewhere).

Yes, Kokoda's quote from PR Watch is a slick piece of propaganda, isn't it? OISM is headed by "an eccentric scientist" who has "controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted science." Smearing the guy is certainly a lot easier than refuting his claims, isn't it? [:)]

In truth, some of the stuff in the paper is pretty iffy, especially the part about carbon dioxide stimulation of plant growth (not as simple as presented). In other areas, he's on more solid ground, nor is he alone in his views. I certainly don't expect the Thermohaline Conveyor to shut down any time soon, geologically speaking. [;)]

I will, however, eventually see "The Day After Tomorrow," if only for the special effects and the laughs. I've seen people chased by cars, tanks (note: on-topic post!), maniacs, monsters, and robots, but I have never seen anyone chased down a hallway by an ice age (great preview)! [:D]

[Kokoda]

The quote Hunpecked extracted is all my own work, not from the website I cited. The approach of the website I cited is not my preference, but it shows how important it is to check the credentials of those who are presenting themselves as authoritative figures - and how easy it is to check.

My point is that when considering scientific debate, the credibility, knowledge and credentials of the author is important. So is peer review in a scientific journal. This article purports to represent scientific research, and is presented in a manner that implies it is a reprint from a highly regarded scientific journal.

If someone (say the authors of this article) with no experience in warfare started to tell AmmoSgt (for example) about weapon characteristics we would probably give him little credibility, particularly if the transparent purpose was to engage in political debate. Here's an example...

The US performance in Iraq is clearly a total fabrication because research has shown that an armoured column could not have travelled at more than 2 mph during the time of the war. In addition it is well established that Sherman tanks cannot fly!

We would see through this combination of true, but irrelevant facts, and gross misrepresentation, because we know something about the subject, but those who would like to believe the first contention - "...a total fabrication..." and don't know anything about the subject, may well give this credence as evidence.

And as for the "CO2 makes plants grow more", that's akin to saying that the introduction of the Zebra Mussel into the Great Lakes is a good thing because it is a significant potential food source, ignoring all the other effects.

...and I WON'T be going to see The Day after Tomorrow, because it is Chicken Little scaremongering and I expect it would just irritate me. These issues are much more complicated and serious than this. Just ask your Bangladeshi and Kiribati friends.

Still, as the economists say...If we stuff up this world..."the market will provide"

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

...and I WON'T be going to see The Day after Tomorrow, because it is Chicken Little scaremongering

You DO understand though eh, that if 9 out of 10 doom and gloom notions are pure bull, but the 10th one isn't, then you are really screwed when that 10th example gets you eh.

You probably don't have car insurance with your attitude. After all, it is unlikely you will ever need it. right?

The difference between myself and yourself is plainly apparent.

I am unwilling to just dismiss Global Warming as a problem, on the basis that 9 out of 10 don't know how to discuss the matter.

[Mangudai]

The article does cite 66 references from academic journals. So the data has been peer reviewed. I don't think the credibility issues are enough to dismiss what Robinson says. Of course, you should never accept the opinion of one "expert" without getting much more background knowledge.

Regarding the claim "CO2 makes plants grow"; the research I've seen says this is significant in tropical areas like the Amazon, but less significant in other areas. Here at the University of Illinois we have several greenhouses filled with several times the normal level of CO2, studying this exact question. (I know I could find journal articles, if I look for them). Basically plants need light, water, and CO2. In tropical rainforests like the Amazon, CO2 is the limiting factor and more CO2 stimulates growth. Where water is scarce, the extra CO2 makes no difference. In the vast forests of Canada and Russia, light is usually the limiting factor, extra CO2 and water make almost no difference.

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: Mangudai
The article does cite 66 references from academic journals. So the data has been peer reviewed. I don't think the credibility issues are enough to dismiss what Robinson says. Of course, you should never accept the opinion of one "expert" without getting much more background knowledge.

Actually, it is not difficult to cite a number of references from academic journals. The fact remains that the conclusions that that are being drawn from this data has not successfully made it into a peer-reviewed journal. Which, I take to be good evidence that the conclusions lack scientific merit.

There is well documented research that showed a correspondence between stock market position and skirt lengths in the 1920s. The data is accurate. But any conclusions that there was a causal mechamism at work were wholly unjustified.

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Kokoda

The quote Hunpecked extracted is all my own work, not from the website I cited.

Actually, it's cut and pasted directly from the PR Watch website. I checked.

The approach of the website I cited is not my preference...

Nor mine. I prefer debate to innuendo.

If someone (say the authors of this article) with no experience in warfare started to tell AmmoSgt (for example) about weapon characteristics we would probably give him little credibility, particularly if the transparent purpose was to engage in political debate.

Exactly. The author's credibility is judged by his claims, not by his haircut.

The "political debate" point is especially apt; "global warming" IS pure politics, because science is unable to settle the issue. Kokoda should remember that when examining "evidence" from BOTH PR campaigns.

We would see through this combination of true, but irrelevant facts, and gross misrepresentation, because we know something about the subject, but those who would like to believe the first contention - "...a total fabrication..." and don't know anything about the subject, may well give this credence as evidence.

So how would Kokoda enlighten the ignorant in this situation? Would he refute the author's claims point by point with genuine facts, or would he just call the author "eccentric" and "home-schooled" [X(] and maybe a poor speller? [:)]

...and I WON'T be going to see The Day after Tomorrow, because it is Chicken Little scaremongering and I expect it would just irritate me. These issues are much more complicated and serious than this.

But, but...does the ignorant public KNOW the issues are more complicated? Perhaps we should refute the film by labeling writer-director Roland Emmerich "eccentric". Yeah, THAT will get the truth out! [:D]

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

There is well documented research that showed a correspondence between stock market position and skirt lengths in the 1920s. The data is accurate. But any conclusions that there was a causal mechamism at work were wholly unjustified.

Terrific example! This is EXACTLY what the "global warming" advocates are doing! I'll bet if those 1920s theorists had made a computer model that "proved" their theory, they would have been inundated with research grants!

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: Hunpecked
Terrific example! This is EXACTLY what the "global warming" advocates are doing! I'll bet if those 1920s theorists had made a computer model that "proved" their theory, they would have been inundated with research grants!

Actually, this misrepresents the case for global warming, as I presented earlier.

Global warming theory does not come from noticing an increase in temperature and wondering about the cause (trying to discover a relationship).

Rather, in the 1890s (120 years ago), scientists said, "Given what we know about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 and similar gasses, and what we know about the emission spectrum of the Earth, if we double CO2 concentrations the atmosphere will absorb additional energy, and its temperature would have to increase to restore equilibrium."

Global warming is not an effect in search of a cause. It is an effect that was predicted 120 years ago based on solid foundational science.

As I mentioned earlier, feedback mechanisms introduce complexity into this issue, but the basic science is nonetheless solid.

There is a reason why the critics of global warming cannot get their research published in a peer-reviewed journal. They would have to be arguing for repeal of the laws of thermodynamics to get their formulae to work.



On the question of computer models, these are often described by critics to be the basis of the argument for concern. As described above, it is not. The research models are based on an assumption that we will have at least a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the future, that it is politically impossible to stop this.

Therefore, the models were designed to try to try to help countries (particularly developing countries) prepare for the inevitable.

The maneuver to mischaracterize the purpose and the nature of the models is a PR gimmic. Somewhere, a PR firm did some polling and discovered, "If we can get people to believe that the voices of alarm are based on the models, and then criticize the models, we can convince them that global warming is not a reason for concern." (Which, then, would allow the companies paying for the PR campaigns to continue to make money.)

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

Actually, this misrepresents the case for global warming, as I presented earlier.

On the contrary, it's an excellent representation. These "scientists" have a phenomenon that COULD warm the earth. They think they observe an increase in temperature and conclude that their phenomenon must be the cause. Yet we all know (or should know) that correlation does not equal causation. Where is the proof?

For example, the "phenomenon" doesn't explain the "global warming" of the Middle Ages, nor does it explain the "little ice age" that followed, nor does it correlate with the findings from Antarctic ice cores that historically carbon dioxide has increased AFTER global warming rather than before.

Global warming is not an effect in search of a cause.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. Or rather, it's a possible effect in search of a cause. I remember in my lifetime when "scientists" were worried about an imminent ice age.

It is an effect that was predicted 120 years ago based on solid foundational science.

Interesting. Sources?

[Kokoda]

"So how would Kokoda enlighten the ignorant in this situation? Would he refute the author's claims point by point with genuine facts, or would he just call the author "eccentric" and "home-schooled" and maybe a poor speller? "

Kokoda wouldn't, and Kokoda didn't call the author eccentric.

Kokoda only wanted to point out that scientific 'fact' is found in reputable refereed journals, not on websites. Thank you Thayne for pointing out what "peer review" really means,

...and in the shorthand of the forum it is almost impossible to have a reasonable debate, because misinterpretation is easy. For example Les-the-Sarge thinks I don't insure my car, because he thinks I don't take global warning seriously. I do. I believe it is a serious and credible threat that we have a responsibility to address. Hence my reference to Bangaldesh and Kiribati. Further I think there are substantial efficiencies that are readily available and produce win-win outcomes.

But we won't resolve this, because we can't even get across what we mean. I suspect Les-the and I have much greater areas of agreement than disagreement, but we can't even communicate that.

Remember, I hoped to nip this in the bud when I started..."I would just like to see threads like this moved to the appropriate place."

[panda124c]

Every so often there is an Iceage where the earth cools off, now it seems that no one has considered what happens half way between Iceage peaks (lows). You know when there is a Warmage (Heatage)when will the halfway point between Iceages going to happen????????????????????????
[&:][>:]

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Global warming?[&:] It was warmer on this planet when the Vikings discovered Ice land and Green Land than now. What was tha cause? all those Viking camp fires?

[Hunpecked]

ORIGINAL: Kokoda

"So how would Kokoda enlighten the ignorant in this situation? Would he refute the author's claims point by point with genuine facts, or would he just call the author "eccentric" and "home-schooled" and maybe a poor speller? "

Kokoda wouldn't, and Kokoda didn't call the author eccentric.

Correct. Kokoda only chose to quote a web site that called the author eccentric. [8|]

Kokoda only wanted to point out that scientific 'fact' is found in reputable refereed journals, not on websites.

Might I suggest that Kokoda could have simply pointed out that the article in question was not published in a peer-reviewed journal?

I believe it ["global warming"] is a serious and credible threat that we have a responsibility to address.

We have much in common. I consider such "remedies" as the Kyoto Protocol a serious and credible threat--almost as big a threat as the increasing politicization of science. [:(]

Remember, I hoped to nip this in the bud when I started..."I would just like to see threads like this moved to the appropriate place."

I also remember that in the same paragraph Kokoda referred to skeptics of "global warming" as "a fringe minority." [:-]

Not to worry, I expect this thread to die soon. I'm already worn out, and I suspect Thayne only has another post or two left in him. [:D] Darn it, when does 8.2 come out??

[KG Erwin]

Yeah, this thread has been here long enough. I'm moving it to the General Discussion forum.