Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 19 of 21
Read many papers.
It's not that the one paper that was cited came directly from GES. The collection of one-sided data did, however. A larger search of the topic yields a better balance of information.
Glacier edges do show more variability, but the overall loss of glacier can't be explained that way. Some say that glacier loss is due to lower moisture. To explain the undeniable melting some say it is due to soot deposition or to orientation (snowfields face south). All say that glacier loss (reduced deposition and increased melting) on Mt Kilimonjaro is ultimately due to global warming.
But there is a wrinkle. Did you also look up the studies of Mt Kenya (nearby) where shadowed snowfields also show signs of recent melting (specifically, not just overall retreat)?
No response to the environmental degradation study reported to the Royal Society? Finn, was that you who pooh-poohed 'doomsday' scenarios? What do you think of that study?
Anyway, I gotta go. Catch you all later.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course the ultimate doomsday scenario is the onset of another ice age after global warming melts the northern ice cap and shuts down the ocean conveyor.
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_
keigwin.html
link added after original posting
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, that was probably me. I pooh-pooh all ‘doomsday’ scenarios, because (1) they’re sensationalism and (2) they aren’t helpful. Crazy tree-hugging hippies crying, “It’s the end of the world!” have about as much credibility as crazy fundamentalists crying, “It’s the end of the world.” Someone has been claiming that the world is going to end for the last 5000 years. Hasn’t ended yet. It might someday, but fixating on it is not constructive. In the end, nations have destroyed themselves by fixating on and reacting to fanatical fears, while many of those ‘doomsday’ scenarios remain largely speculative. There are certainly plenty of environmental problems that need attending, but we are far more at risk of shooting ourselves in the foot then we are from global warming or dimming or whatever the media is fixating on these days.
Originally posted by rue:
No response to the environmental degradation study reported to the Royal Society? Finn, was that you who pooh-poohed 'doomsday' scenarios? What do you think of that study?
As far as the study itself is concerned, I’ll be happy to read it, time permitting.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Finn and Rue. I'll go back to lurking on this thread since things quickly get way too scientific for me (as an engineer, I just want to figure out what to DO 
).
Oh, and the reason I asked that last pretty simple question, Finn, was to try and establish some commonality. I got the impression that other posters would've either answered no or just don't care. It helps me better interpret posts now that I know you're coming from a position of one of degrees of importance.
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only had time for a quick skim. So, I only have time for a quick one.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quick question. Has anyone heard about global dimming?
Yes, but it's my understanding that this is currently being looked into and as of yet, we don't really know. Basically, current research.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Also,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Do you think we, as a species, are affecting global climate?
Yes. But, to what degree is debatable. Which I gather is the reason why this thread is so long.
It's also possible (although I don't think so), that if we do nothing, that this change is only temporary (on a greater time scale) that our change will be balanced in time.
Some of the problems are people that don't really understand that spread mis-information, etc. Unfortunatly these people are quite numerous and loud. Also, people that listen to these people don't understand that confidence != understanding.
ie Crichton
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
At any rate, that's all I have time for right now. Back to finals *sigh*
----
"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
Hey,
Disclaimer begins********
For the record, I have been skeptical of the Global warming issue as a whole. Not really that
it is happening, but:
1. Rather how much Man has to do with it.
2. How resilient is the natural enviroment to compensating for it.
3. How much is due to natural swings caused by
natural events that we do not understand.
My postition is "who gives a shit". Whether
global warming is real or an alarmist fantasy, it
does'nt matter. We are not doing nearly enough to
stop man made pollution of all types. Yes, a good
deal has been done since the sixties on (alas, which I do remember) to curb rampant wholesale pollution of the enviroment (at least in select countries like the US), but it is'nt enough.
We absolutely have to get the world economy/industry away from a petroleum base and onto a clean source of energy. ASAP.
Disclaimer ends**************
That said, I found this article very interesting.
Please don't flame me as partisan. I am only the
messenger. 
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
From the first page:
1) Department of Economics
2) "a well-known study..."
Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.
Perhaps someone with more time than me will read and give a summary. As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams, I cannot spare the time for this.
----
"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 SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
From the first page:
1) Department of Economics
2) "a well-known study..."
Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.
Perhaps someone with more time than me will read and give a summary. As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams, I cannot spare the time for this.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Well then, you did not choose wisely.
This paper is NOT from an economist purporting
himself to be an expert on Global Climate Study,
but an economist who is well versed in Statistical Analysis, and the building of Statistically sound computer models.
Perhaps you should have gotten past the abstract,
and read the meat of the paper before you arbitrarily toss it out.
That is after all, what scientific
objectivivity is all about. Don't you agree?
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Please don't take this post as me being an 
I'm in a rush and don't have time to "pretty it up."
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Well then, you did not choose wisely.
This paper is NOT from an economist purporting
himself to be an expert on Global Climate Study,
but an economist who is well versed in Statistical Analysis, and the building of Statistically sound computer models.
Perhaps you should have gotten past the abstract,
and read the meat of the paper before you arbitrarily toss it out.
That is after all, what scientific
objectivivity is all about. Don't you agree?
I'll quote myself:
"""
2) "a well-known study..."
Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.
As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams
"""
"a" study. There are far more than just one.
By the abstract, it only considers one of Manns papers, which is scientifically ridiculous given that there are far more than just this one study. ie At this point in time,attacking one of the papers is insufficient to cause any harm to the ideas contained therein.
By the abstract. it only finds holes in Mann's method (apparently), but refuses to acknowledge (again), that there are other papers using different methods that have come to the same conclusion.
I'm in the midst of crunch time. Thus I don't have time for reading things that are clearly irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. ie Even if everything this guy says is true, it doesn't do a thing to discredit the curve given the above facts.
Now if someone wanted to isolate Manns paper and discuss just it, then I would read and discuss. But, we aren't discussing just Mann, we are discussing the whole.
So, unless you find papers that attempt to discredit the whole or individual papers that attempt to discredit all/most papers individually that end up with the curve, then this conversation ends here and this paper is interestingly moot. (note: I'm not being sarcasitic here. I would read the paper if I had the time.)
So, read posts before you spout off next time.
----
"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
Edited post after rereading Sigs response.
Actually, the Mann Hockey Stick, is the referenced
paper/graph seen in other enviromental papers and
presentations. Even you rely quite heavily on it.
There are many other studies/graphs that do not
show the hockey stick, but they are rarely seen.
Please read the entire paper before you jump to
any conclusions about validity. As I said, I only
posted the link because I thought it was interesting. (please re-read my Disclaimer in my
original post
AnyWho, Here's the Cliff notes version:
The Gist of the whole paper is that the Algorithm that
"Mann Et al" used was seriously flawed. It was made in
such a way that even if you used randomly computer generated numbers
for your data, the Mann Algorithim would produce a "HockeyStick" graph
99 times out of a hundred.
In fact, the algorithm is "Tuned" to do just that. The data set that Mann
used was also selected to ensure that the Hockey Stick appeared.
Apparently, the whole reason this came up, was that when the Mann report
(AKA "Hockey Stick" report) came out, McIntyre and McKitrick tried to
reproduce it, but could not (others had the same problem). So they
started looking into why that was.
I found it to be an interesting read.....
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME