Climate-gate

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Well, I guess its time to stock up on twinkies and spam.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466


    Pass the rye...............
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Decided to do a bit of research in to global emergency services climate change response development. ( ongoing )
    From a quick glance at it there appears to be a massive amount of devotion to this issue.
    ...and with every event we as a world, are getting better at it ...

    ie. Vanuatu Cat 5 cyclone, est: 11 fatalities (*?). (some of which due to refusal to evacuate I believe)

    With out adequate preparation this event could have been considerably worse IMO
    Post - event devastation mortality has also been reduced due to the rapid response planning.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    That's almost certain to happen. It has happened before and it will happen again.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    <-----Has been looking at more on mis 11 (the Holsteinian interglacial).
    From the Lake Baikal studies the climate was much warmer and at least 25% wetter, (less continental) with less seasonality than the Holocene in central siberia.
    Support from studies in Germany, Lake Elgygytgyn, south china sea, etc...
    meanwhile, the inferred temperature of the north atlantic was much the same as that of the holocene.
    Greenland and the arctic shores were forested, and west antarctica was most likely ice free.

    The prospect of global warming seems a whole lot like paradise to me.
    What a great time to have been alive.
    If only the promise of AGW were true.........but, I suspect much of the hype is hubris.
     
  9. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    the threat is not from the warming itself...
    but from the extremely rapid change as well as the possibility that we cannot change or adapt with it
    or that it will get far worse far quicker than we can adjust to
    or that it will run away into far more warming

    Rapid climate change is likely far more dangerous than you think. Here is a good article talking about it with references to studies that support the conclusions held therein: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html

    it si not hubris, it is science. this is similar to the pollution problem or even eating dangerous foods. The science tells us what is possible. if we ignore it, then we ignore it at our own risk.

    Something else to consider: the climate is NOT some pendulum ... it warms or cools for a reason
    this is about energy balances, and continuing to ignore the real possibility that it will cycle into something dangerous is really a very stupid idea... there needs to be a change for the better.
    We are bad about polluting our own lives and ecosystems... and this is no different...
    metaphorically speaking: we have defecated in our own bed and if we don't clean it up and deal with the problem, we will only make it worse or cause a situation that we cannot live with.

    this article is relevant and makes a good point
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Weird!
    As part of a dialogue in another thread brief research ( and I do mean brief ) suggests that Russia, although a significant land mass etc, has not recorded any significant Climate change events.
    Why would that be the case do you think? ( press censorship perhaps or just plain lucky )
    Could Russia actually benefit from AGW climate change? (given it's high latitudes)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
  12. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Sure they have. Your just looking at the wrong source (original russian data). You must go to GISS, USHCN, MET, etc to get the Adjusted (tortured) Data to find the AGW.

    man made indeed.
     
  13. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The long view/perspective:
    As temperature proxies:
    The trend is your friend:
    Go long cold, and short heat.

    .................
    It seems that we have no accurate climate models.
    We do, however, have history embodied within the proxies of this ice age that we are most likely still in.
    ..........
    Inductive, abductive and deductive reasoning are all seeds from which different modeling trees will grow.
    spliced or hybridized most would likely offer altered perspectives

    .................
    and about the magnetic reversals.........................
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Look into D_O events which put our pathetic little warming trend to shame. And, of which, we have survived many.

    Perhaps, perhaps not
    as/re D_O events:
    pendulum?
    Certainly something which we still do not understand.

    If we do not understand the reasons behind extant and past climate change, we are most assuredly constrained in our ability to model our climate with any hope of accuracy.

    That being said,
    why would you use a phrase like:
    ?
     
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    researching it now... might take a little while considering the wiki link doesn't have much info

    ASSumption
    plus, you cannot guarantee the warming trend is stopped, nor that it will stop anytime soon

    go back and read that link... it explains better than a short reply here can

    this is reaching a bit, don't you think?

    i can't explain why i didn't get shot during the Gulf war, either, but i can not only predict the likely casualties during a war/hostile event even with the extremely chaotic situation with more input's and variables than we can track, i can also teach soldiers and others how to minimize the risk: of exposure, safety, interactions and more
    and that will limit the casualties to the minimal end of the spectrum (again, probabilities, just like the climate models - argument "models are not correct" is fallacious and based upon lack of information and the Assumption that models be 100% accurate while failing to remember the probabilities or error margins)

    first off, look at the whole phrase, in context:
    Secondly: the phrase means exactly what it says
    there remains the possibility that the situation, left untreated, can become far worse

    and that is where the argument becomes political etc
    and i am not worried, nor willing, to argue politics... politics is subjective and irrelevant to the science
    the science is accurate and provable

    Politics/politicians and religious, conspiracy, pseudoscience acolytes out there that are muddying the waters trying to demand their attention be given credibility where there is no credibility to be found.
    It is simple: there is an overwhelming amount of science that proves AGW and warming to exist. to deny that is to deny reality.
    it also means that the person denying it will likely be a subset of a few finite groups of people who, for certain reasons, are not able to or willing to recognize the scientific evidence. See: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF for more information
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    possibility-----------------yes
    but
    probability?

    Much of our warming of the last century was most likely from the grand solar maximum

    Percentages of solar and anthropogenic forcings remain in doubt.
    We keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the warming has taken an hiatus.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ergo, my suspicion that the claims for agw are much of hubris.
    Scientifically, when your predictions fail to match real world events, then more knowledge is needed.
    Stepping back from preconceptions and viewing the experiment from a different perspective is usually a good way of inculcating new knowledge.

    Do we have an adequate excess of heat in the atmosphere and in the earth to protect us from another volcanic winter from a magnitude 7 or 8 volcano?

    There was widespread famine, disease and death following the last magnitude 7.
    If we were to lose even one year's grain crops, could you guarantee no deaths from starvation?
    Ken Verosub of the University of California, Davis estimated that future eruptions capable of causing "Volcanic Winter" effects severe enough to depress global temperatures by 2°F (1°C) and trigger widespread crop failures for 1 - 2 years afterwards should occur about once every 200 - 300 years. The last was 200 years ago.

    The last known magnitude 8 is deemed responsible for the genetic bottleneck when we were reduced to less than 10,000 survivors.
    The next one could well drop our temperatures 9 degrees F, resulting in famine and most likely a world war that could leave billions dead.

    A little warming now could be of tremendous benefit within our children's lifetimes.

    (Gas up the SUV darling, we've got a world to save)
    If only the promise of AGW were true.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
  18. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Now the warming is a good thing?

    *wondering whether it was a good idea to buy all of those twinkies*
     
    Quantum Quack and sculptor like this.
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Just another perspective.
    Good---bad are interdependent value judgments.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    eh!? I gooot a bucket load of Spam... wanna trade?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well it certainly has clearly demonstrated how vested interest, scientific/political esteem (hubris- pride) and social inertia can distort any solid theoretical speculations.
    It has also demonstrated the nature of paranoia and how significant the role of fear plays in outcomes.
    Certainly the push to find alternatives to big oil, generating a greater appreciation for the environment and eco systems etc are all long term benefits IMO


    I guess that's a good thing.. Hopefully we may do better next time... if there is a next time...
     
    sculptor likes this.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    amen
     
  23. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    this is ASSumption that does not match observation
    it is also something already considered and the evidence says otherwise:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
    however, if you think you would prefer the study over the link above, which should explain it to you... go here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    the cumulative evidence shows that we are not dealing with your "solar maximum" warming
    http://sun.stanford.edu/LWS_Dynamo_2009/61797.web.pdf
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    there are plenty of references on the link i left after the quote that support the science and knowledge that it is not a solar maximum issue, nor is it a sun/natural cycle.

    About your Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O, a.k.a. Bond) events could be causing the current global warming. D-O events are rapid climate fluctuations that occur quasi-periodically with a 1,470-year recurrance time and which, according to Singer, are "likely caused by the sun." However, there is significant debate as to the cause of these D-O events, with changes in solar output being just one possibility (NOAA Paleoclimatology).Dansgaard-Oeschger Events
    this is what i have been able to dig up : also in that link i left
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    I can see no reason to argue that point given the studies supporting the above conclusions

     

Share This Page