Originally posted by KunsooThat's because it's a load of tosh! As merk pointed out in the other thread, thousands of scientists have finally woken up to the fact it's crap and changed their minds:
Anybody notice that anytime anybody tries to start an intelligent discussion of the issue certain people respond with the Rich Little strawman? Never any substance mind you, just hysterical accusations of hysteria.
It's almost as if they just don't want to hear about it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
As for the twit who dreamed up the myth in the first place, she is obviously chasing the free handouts and research grants that all governments are falling over themselves to dish out. Either that or she's one of those incompetent types who struggle to do real research but is desperate to see her name in print to get some respect... "Let's see" she said to herself one rainy night as she lay in the tub, "I know I'm hopelessly outclassed and don't know how to do real science, but I need to get my name on something... what can I write about that will get me some attention?"
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214776
Originally posted by SpastiGovI'm sorry, but when you make a statement as vague as "thousands of scientists..." you lose credibility. I remember the petition of "scientists" who opposed the Kyoto accords, and it turned out that most of them were computer "scientists" and most of those who were in any applicable discipline were industry shills and hacks.
That's because it's a load of tosh! As merk pointed out in the other thread, thousands of scientists have finally woken up to the fact it's crap and changed their minds:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
As for the twit who dreamed up the myth in ...[text shortened]... get my name on something... what can I write about that will get me some attention?"
Your link does not provide an article which discusses the oceans CO2 capacity. You're not even on topic. You're trotting out rote boilerplate arguments, again with no substance.
Of course there are a great deal of unanswered questions, and nobody's disputed that. And the issue of whether the global warming was caused by human activities is actually beside the point. The real issue is whether a reduction in human made greenhouse gas emissions will slow the "climate change."
I do note that we have made some progress. At least the "skeptics" no longer dispute that warming is happening. We're down to the causation issue now.
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooI'm sorry, but when you make a statement as vague as 'most of the scientists who opposed the Kyoto accords were computer scientists', you lose credibility. The assortment of "scientists" who appeared on the IPCC's list of "scientists" were far from all having expertise in the field. It was a mixed bag of credentials, with many being anything but climatologists! Indeed, many who opposed the findings of the IPCC actually asked for their names to be removed from the list altogether with some threatening legal action and these guys DID have credentials in the field!
I'm sorry, but when you make a statement as vague as "thousands of scientists..." you lose credibility. I remember the petition of "scientists" who opposed the Kyoto accords, and it turned out that most of them were computer "scientists" and most of those who were in any applicable discipline were industry shills and hacks.
Your link does not provide an a longer dispute that warming is happening. We're down to the causation issue now.
But interestingly, I can make a similarly sweeping statement to yours that carries at least as much weight if not more: "It turns out that most of the scientists perpetuating the anthropogenic global warming myth were computer "scientists" and most of those who were in any applicable discipline were industry shills and hacks". And of course all of them are on the take because at the moment that's where the money is if you want any hope of getting decent research grants. The AGW myth is funded by politicians trawling for votes because the greenie environmental movement is on the ascendent. Thus: green issues = votes = politicians pretending they care about something meaningful = money flow in that direction = scientists who would otherwise not manage to get their name in print.
In any case my point is very much on topic because that's what this latest ridiculous "finding" is all about: the mad idea that man's CO2 footprint is causing global warming which in turn is causing climate change. The whole idea is insane!
According to idiots like Al Gore, the debate is apparently over!
Yeah right!
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214776
Originally posted by SpastiGovThat's my whole point. You can't address the particulars of the oceans CO2 capacity, the actual topic of the thread, because all you have are the industry talking points. The IPCC participants were selected for their abilities. Whether the IPCC did a good job in their selection is a legitimate issue of debate. But the only criteria for signing the anti-Kyoto position were the possession of a title of some sort and the willingness to sign.
I'm sorry, but when you make a statement as vague as 'most of the scientists who opposed the Kyoto accords were computer scientists', you lose credibility. The assortment of "scientists" who appeared on the IPCC's list of "scientists" were far from all having expertise in the field. It was a mixed bag of credentials, with many being anything but climatolog ...[text shortened]... According to idiots like Al Gore, the debate is apparently over!
Yeah right!
Nobody in this thread who identifies him/herself as a "global warming skeptic" has addressed the article in particular. Each of you has simply triggered the default reaction to the broad topic of global warming.
What are your thoughts about the oceanographers' report? That's how you begin. The move to address what you perceive to be the broader agenda.
2 edits
Originally posted by KunsooFocusing on the contents of the paper is difficult, as we need a subscription to Science to read it. Unfortunately the lead author hasn't posted a preprint on her website as other scientists very often do. The abstract states:
What are your thoughts about the oceanographers' report?
'Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.'
To be honest I think the sentence 'observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities' is pretty strong, so it's a shame we can't see the analysis performed to see how she's come to this absolute statement. I am a little skeptical about the certainty of the findings to be honest, as I'm aware of just how sparse the observations in the southern ocean are. Usually a figure stated in an abstract includes the perceived error (e.g. +/- 0.04 blah). That this abstract doesn't, combined with the fact that 0.08 PgC/year in terms of the whole ocean is a relatively small number, leads me to think 'is this really science that the BBC should have on it's front page?'. But again I can't see the paper so I'm not certain.
As I mentioned, observations in the southern ocean are sparse. You might want to take a look at a not-too-old report on observations on one part of the southern ocean, where there isn't even enough data to determine if the ocean is a CO2 source or sink! Page 4 (1mb):
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/solas/News1/SOLAS%20Newsletter%20Autumn.pdf
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooThe report is nothing but conjecture, guess work and assumption and as elleffseee just mentioned, the data points used to arrive at these assumptions are very sparse.
That's my whole point. You can't address the particulars of the oceans CO2 capacity, the actual topic of the thread, because all you have are the industry talking points. The IPCC participants were selected for their abilities. Whether the IPCC did a good job in their selection is a legitimate issue of debate. But the only criteria for signing the anti-Ky t? That's how you begin. The move to address what you perceive to be the broader agenda.
But the thing that amazes me about the whole theory of AGW, including this latest so called "discovery" that the oceans are at saturation point, is that it all hangs together with words like "we estimate" and "may lead to" and "could possibly" and "is expected". It is wishful thinking at best and boils down to two fundamental flaws: an unhealthy dependence on computer modelling and a blind devotion to a fashionable cause that has now become a religious conviction. The devoted adherents have become so deluded - and seduced by the kudos that comes from repeating the sacred mantra - that they are unable to perceive the weaknesses in their own theory and so subconsciously ignore them.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214776
99% of science is conjecture. The point is, the data is very compelling. You mention that there are "believers" who have become "skeptics." There are also "skeptics" who have become "believers."
Again, the ad hominem isn't enough. If there's anything to the data, we're in trouble. There are plenty of other benefits to emission reduction in any case.
Originally posted by SpastiGovif we believe paul erlich's (sic) modelling, we should all be dead by now. or so i estimate.
The report is nothing but conjecture, guess work and assumption and as elleffseee just mentioned, the data points used to arrive at these assumptions are very sparse.
But the thing that amazes me about the whole theory of AGW, including this latest so called "discovery" that the oceans are at saturation point, is that it all hangs together with words li ...[text shortened]... able to perceive the weaknesses in their own theory and so subconsciously ignore them.
I've lost count how many times during the 70's 80's and 90's that we heard that we only had 10 years left to clean the environment to sop cooling, and a dozen other things. In this case people have no concept that there is a gigantic reactor a relatively short distance away (it's called the sun). It has hot spots, cold spots, and activity fluctuations. If CO2 emissions were such a problem then wouldn't we have heat spikes whenever there were wildfires? A single forest fire /wild fire burns more fuel and puts more smoke, soot and CO2 into the air than all of our cars combined. There was one in Jersey last week that was showing up as cloud movement on the weather radar. It burned miles of fuel (trees, growth etc). We just had one of the coldest Aprils on record and no news from the Gore crowd.
Originally posted by hamltnblueCare to give a reference for that statement? I suspect it's not correct as there are of the order of 20,000,000 cars (plausible figure as 70% of households have at least one car) in the UK alone and they run all year round - forest fires are fortunately less frequent. In any case the important difference between a forest fire and car use is that the emissions from a forest fire are part of the carbon cycle; the emmisions from a car haven't been part of the carbon cycle for umpteen million years.
I've lost count how many times during the 70's 80's and 90's that we heard that we only had 10 years left to clean the environment to sop cooling, and a dozen other things. In this case people have no concept that there is a gigantic reactor a relatively short distance away (it's called the sun). It has hot spots, cold spots, and activity fluctuations. ...[text shortened]... th etc). We just had one of the coldest Aprils on record and no news from the Gore crowd.
The solar cycle argument is better, but doesn't account for the observed increase in atmospheric CO_2 relative to pre-industrial CO_2 levels inferred from ice core samples.
This shutdown of this carbon sink wasn't expected for a long time. That there is evidence that it is happening now should be a cause for considerable alarm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire#Atmospheric_effects
"Most of the Earth's weather and air pollution reside in the troposphere, the part of the atmosphere that extends from the surface of the planet to a height of between 8 and 13 kilometers. A severe thunderstorm or pyrocumulonimbus in the area of a large wildfire can have its vertical lift enhanced to boost smoke, soot and other particles as high as the lower stratosphere (Wang, 2003).
Previously, it was thought that most particles in the stratosphere came from volcanoes or were generated by high-flying aircraft. Collection of air samples from the stratosphere in 2003 led to detection of carbon monoxide and other gases related to combustion at a level 30 times higher than can be accounted for by commercial aircraft.
Satellite observation of smoke plumes from wildfires revealed that the plumes could be traced intact for distances exceeding 5,000 kilometers. This observation suggests that the plumes were in the stratosphere above weather conditions that would have brought the plume back to earth.
Atmospheric models suggest that these concentrations of sooty particles could increase absorption of incoming solar radiation during winter months by as much as 15% (Baumgardner, et al., 2003).
The massive forest fire in Indonesia (1997/1998) released approx. 2.57 gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere (source: Nature magazine, November 2002). During 1997-1998, the total amount of Carbon Dioxide released to the atmosphere was 6 gigatonnes. Most of the Carbon Dioxide gas is released by the continuous underground smouldering fire on the peat bogs.
"
Originally posted by hamltnblue"The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today."
We just had one of the coldest Aprils on record and no news from the Gore crowd.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI believe this is somewhat alarmist from the Guardian. The article states:
"The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html
'Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago.'
A more balanced view that takes in to account the natural variability of the ocean, as well as (again) the severe lack of observations can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/