Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 8 of 21
Quote:Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position, I still applaud her for at least attempting to check the other side, and in the process she has apparently learned something.
Originally posted by rue:
The debate according to them is apportioning HOW MUCH is due to human activity, and HOW FAR will the changes reach.
Whether or not a consensus exists on global warming depends largely on exactly what is being agreed upon. It is a common tactic among advocates of global warming to point to a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, but talk instead on the highly speculative catastrophic affects. This is frequently intentionally misleading people to the conclusion that the consensus is the catastrophic affects, but this is inconclusive at best. The scientific community might be in consensus on the earth warming; there might even be a consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Of far less certainty, however, is whether or not this warming will lead to apocalyptic changes or to what degree humans are affecting or can affect a change in global climate.
Here’s another petition. This one has 17100 independently verified signatures, 2660 of which are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. "
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Source: University Of Bristol
Date: 2005-01-25
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124005755.htm
New Research Suggests That Climate Warming May Be Occurring Even Faster Than Previously Recognized
A long standing puzzle that has haunted climate researchers looking at the fate of carbon stored in the world's soils, has now been resolved. The research suggests that climate warming may be occurring even faster than previously recognised.
The international team of researchers, led by Bristol University and reporting in Nature [20 January 2005], show that an apparent biological adaptation of micro-organisms that break down carbon in soils, thereby releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, can in fact be explained by the widely contrasting properties of those organic carbons.
Recent reports of laboratory experiments have stated that the micro-organisms responsible for soil carbon decomposition gradually acclimatise to an increase in heat and adjust the rate at which carbon is released into the atmosphere, such that it is effectively released at a steady rate. However, this does not agree with long-established rules of physical chemistry that predict that as the climate warms these reactions should speed up, resulting in an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released.
The team of researchers at Bristol University and the Natural Environment Research Council's QUEST programme, the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry in Germany, and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, has now managed to solve the puzzle, bringing the apparent contradictions from laboratory experiments in line with theoretical predictions.
They show that what looked liked a biological adaptation of the micro-organisms can in fact be explained by widely contrasting properties of organic carbon present in soils.
These properties range from highly digestible (labile) sugar-like compounds to almost stable, charcoal-like compounds which the micro-organisms have difficulty breaking down. Such an extreme mixture has so far prevented theoretical interpretation of the laboratory experiments.
The next step will be to apply the new theory in complex climate simulations, using so-called Earth System Models. So far, these models only use properties from the labile soil carbon because they are easier to measure. But an estimated 90% of the carbon locked up in the world's soil is made up of the more stable components, which must now be built into the model.
The new results predict that since the micro-organisms are not keeping the release of carbon dioxide from the soil at a steady state, as previously thought, an increase in climate temperatures will result in an increase in the rate at which the stable components decompose. This will lead to even more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and more rapid climate change.
This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Bristol.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&ncid=1511&e=8&u=/ afp/20050127/wl_afp/scienceenvironment _050127013448
Global warming could be twice as bad as feared: computer model
PARIS (AFP) - Global warming may be twice as bad as expected, according to a new assessment of a commonly-used yardstick of possible carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.
Until now, most computer models of climate change predict that if atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double of the pre-industrial age, the Earth's surface temperature will be between two and five C (3.6-9.0 F) warmer when compared with 1990 levels.
But a study published Thursday in the British science journal Nature suggests that the temperature rise could be much higher -- of between nearly two (3.6 F) and more than 11 C (19.8 F).
The research comes from a highly ambitious project in "shared computing," in which more than 90,000 people in more than 140 countries downloaded a special programme to crunch through data on their personal computer.
The screensaver software, which operates when the PC is not in use, was f
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?
If I had the time, I'd address the (outdated) nonsense you linked, but it will have to wait for a few days until I can get to it, if ever.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe a little of both.
Originally posted by rue:
If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?
Quote:Nonsense? Because it doesn’t support what you want to be true.
Originally posted by rue:
If I had the time, I'd address the (outdated) nonsense you linked, but it will have to wait for a few days until I can get to it, if ever.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...and seems to suggest that the Peer-Review Process fails if it does not serve to support the consensus.
Where the hell are you getting this from?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The papers that the author noted may very well have been flawed, but that alone does not render their conclusions inconsequential, particularly if the evidence as a whole is largely inconclusive.
In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.
And you presume to call yourself a scientist?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If the evidence is not conclusive, then it stands to reason that conclusions drawn in contrary to a thesis may be flawed. However, it also stands to reason that conclusion drawn in favor of the same thesis are certainly as likely to be flawed, if they are based on the same inconclusive evidence. Essentially, the inconclusiveness of the information makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusion one way or another, but if the scientific community has decided that one thesis is more likely, then it stands to reason that the flaws in papers contrary to this prevailing thesis are more likely to be aired, then those in support of it. The “consensus” then may be wholly or partially circular.
I'm always amazed at how long people can go on without saying anything or near nothing. You certainly like to hear yourself talk don't you.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.
You’re a smart guy, aren’t you? I think you can figure it out. Like you said, google it.
Then you refuse to abid by the standards that you yourself set then, eh. Interesting.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi SigmaNunki,
It's nice top be back, if only briefly. It's strange, I also have RealClimate in my message. I'm still super busy, so I only drop in for a few minutes every few weeks. Haven't read further down the line yet, but here are some things I ran across and gathered together that seemed apropos to the topic:
I know the feeling. I've only had time to come here and post a few minutes a week for the past while with no end in site.
Oh well, I guess we'll have to intermittently fight the good fight
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All experiments have flaws and limitations. Are the conclusions of every scientific pursuit then rendered null?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.
And you presume to call yourself a scientist?
And yes to your second question.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SigmaNunki,
Just a short hi and - have a reasonable weekend.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Quote:Not either one, eh?
Maybe a little of both.
As to why it's nonsense, the shortest expln is it's because it's not science. It's just a website for people to vote for their favorite dogma.
Now, if you believe it's science, then no amount of education I might try to provide would possibly help.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As far as you know, I suppose.
Originally posted by rue:
FinnQuote:Not either one, eh?
Maybe a little of both.
Quote:Doublethink. This is a rather humorous juxtaposition of statements. On one hand you dismiss outright something based purely, it would seem, on nothing more then that it disagrees with your position, and then criticize me for, apparently, not accepting your claim on pure faith.
Originally posted by rue:
As to why it's nonsense, the shortest expln is it's because it's not science. It's just a website for people to vote for their favorite dogma.
Now, if you believe it's science, then no amount of education I might try to provide would possibly help.
Incidentally, not that this has anything to do with current discussion, but tonight is expected to be one of the coldest on record in my state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME