Global Warming Cont...

Oh my goodness, 17,000+ scientists and professionals that disagree that global warming is caused by humans burning hydrocarbons.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

The audacity of these crack-potted hacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I agree. Unfortunately, the continued rise of CO2, while not objectionable now, is getting out of our control. in short, when that beasty creature called climate changes from sleeping to growling, there won't be much we can do.:bigcry:

---

This is one of the few statements you've made that I can actually agree with (yes, I know I ended the sentence with a preposition). Yes, the rise of CO2 is out of control. Just as the decreases in CO2 are out of our control. It is a natural phenomena. Man cannot control it.

Even your friends in the IPCC say that if we reduced man-made CO2 emissions today, we would see little affect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

We are moving into uncharted coastal waters. WE know that the average global temperature is going to rise for the rest of this century and the next, but how the climate is going to handle that increased temperature is unknown.

---

You continue to use absolute statements that you can't back up scientificaly. We do not know that global temperature will rise for rest of the century. None of the models are accurate enough to accurately predict what will happen tomorrow, much less 100 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

If we knew our current climate would remain the same but only warmer, that wouldn't be so bad but we don't know that. There could be major shifts in rainfall amounts and temperatures on a regional basis.

---

And we don't know if there will be NO major shifts in rainfall, hurricanes, droughts, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

When you make statements like this you break your own case.

Yes, there are normal climate fluctuations. Ice core samples prove that. They can occur over short and long periods of time.

The climate is "beasty". We are "poking it with sticks", Especially with the models that are used to predict what will occur tomorrowm next week, bext month, next year, by the end of the century. The further you get away from today, the further in error your model is.

Yes, I will be surprised if it bites me in the ass in thirty years. What I won't be surprised by is that the climate will stabilize and turn cooler, part of the natural climate cycle. However, people like you will claim that it is because there was a reduction in CO2 emissions (even though global Co2 emissions are likely to be higher thirty years from now).

Since Kyoto was signed in 1997, how many major producers have reduced their CO2 emissions (I think the answer is 1)?

Since 1997, of the major producers, what country had the smallest increase (USA?)?

What country, which is not regulated by the stricter guidleines of Kyoto, will soon pass the US in CO2 emissions? China

I'm hoping that all your "sky is falling buddies" will start dumping their beach property soon so that it will deflate the property values on the coast. I (and many others) will be more than happy to pick up those soon to be underwater properties at a mere fraction of their current values.

30 years from now, I'll be having a party on one of those (still dry) properties, laughing all the way to the bank.

---

I heard that you can buy some land down in Gulfport for a pretty good price.

The Kyoto agreement is old news and needs to be re-done because it is so old.

The USA is the largest producer of CO2 so naturally it would have the lowest percentage increase. India and China need to control their CO2 emissions.

The models are not perfect and are probably on the conservative side. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than was forecasted by the models. As time progresses, the models will improve. Most of the model deal with the effects of the temperature rising. We know the temperature is going to rise because of atmospheric physics but we don't know how fast or to what degree since climate change is a multifactorial process and there are a number of unknows such as cloud cover changes.

i said climate can change rather rapidly. Many of the ice ages started suddenly. Of course, climate change in a region can be slow processes as well.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise through this century and into the next even if we stop all burning of fossil fuel today.

What will the climate be in 30 years? Can't really say in a particular region of the world. All we can say is that the average global temperture will be higher. Some areas could be very much colder and others very much hotter. Other areas near the equator might not change at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

Oh my goodness, 17,000+ scientists and professionals that disagree that global warming is caused by humans burning hydrocarbons.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

The audacity of these crack-potted hacks.

---

From Scientific American:

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community

Tell ya what, you people are nuts. This thread is starting to rival the Best Thread Ever in its length. If you're gonna talk about the world warming up, that means women can wear less clothes, so bring up some pics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I heard that you can buy some land down in Gulfport for a pretty good price.

The Kyoto agreement is old news and needs to be re-done because it is so old.

The USA is the largest producer of CO2 so naturally it would have the lowest percentage increase. India and China need to control their CO2 emissions.

The models are not perfect and are probably on the conservative side. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than was forecasted by the models. As time progresses, the models will improve. Most of the model deal with the effects of the temperature rising. We know the temperature is going to rise because of atmospheric physics but we don't know how fast or to what degree since climate change is a multifactorial process and there are a number of unknows such as cloud cover changes.

i said climate can change rather rapidly. Many of the ice ages started suddenly. Of course, climate change in a region can be slow processes as well.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise through this century and into the next even if we stop all burning of fossil fuel today.

What will the climate be in 30 years? Can't really say in a particular region of the world. All we can say is that the average global temperture will be higher. Some areas could be very much colder and others very much hotter. Other areas near the equator might not change at all.

---

Salty.......

You are full of BS!!!! You have no qualifications to say that the "models.........are probably on the conservative side." You cherry pick, then cut and paste so much of this crap that you start believing you have some expertise in this area, which you obviously don't!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

the pH of oceanic water has decreased by 0.1 in the last 100 years.

There is no proof anywhere that it is due to CO2.

---

Wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...id-oceans.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Pup60

Salty.......

You are full of BS!!!! You have no qualifications to say that the "models.........are probably on the conservative side." You cherry pick, then cut and paste so much of this crap that you start believing you have some expertise in this area, which you obviously don't!!

---

Bill, always good to hear your sincere opinion.:D However, the climate models under-estimated the amount of glacier melting on Greenland. Now, whether it was because the models were conservative or some other factor i don't know. Since you feel you know so much on this topic why don't you tell me why the models did not predict the more rapid rate of Glacier melting on Greenland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...id-oceans.html

---

Umm, tell me you know SOMETHING about pH and acidity. Or maybe you really NEVER had a class in the physical sciences.

I should add - I actually agree that pH shifts in the ocean are much more likely to have a major impact than the global warming effects that you are talking about - that is, CO2 would probably change the pH of oceans BEFORE it contributes enough as a greenhouse gas to cause the drastic global climate changes we hear about. But there is some buffering capacity of the oceans, and I'm not really sure that the pH will ever dip to a point that it will be corrosive to the majority of sealife. Frankly, freshwater systems seem much more likely to be affected.

However, until someone overcomes the whole inevitability argument that I have posed about 20 times now, the discussion is pointless. Further, if the CO2 levels have been anywhere near what they are now (which I currently believe to be the case), and sealife survived (there is certainly sea-life that is closely related to species that existed 100k years ago), then I don't buy the talk of catastrophe.

Moving on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Tell ya what, you people are nuts. This thread is starting to rival the Best Thread Ever in its length. If you're gonna talk about the world warming up, that means women can wear less clothes, so bring up some pics!

---

yes, we are all NUTS! Take a peek at Debbie, who thinks that there is nothing wrong with global warming. Photos taken near Anchorage, AK.

http://www.absolute-bikini.com/debbie.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

From Scientific American:

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community

---

Yes, that non-biased bastion of credibility SA.

These numbers make no sense. First, a "random" sampling of 30 of a pool of 17,000 signatures is statistically insignificant. There is some obvious bias in how they picked their pool. Why only contact the ones who had PhD's? Apparentally, having an MD, an MS, a BS, a BA, etc.. don't qualify for being considered "qualified"? BS alright.

But let's take the numbers. Of the 30:
4 were not located
5 did not respond
3 "did not remember" the petition
1 was dead
6 would not sign the petition

11 would still sign the petition, according to SA,
1 was an active researcher,
2 had relevent experience (based on SA's non-biased evaluation)
8 signed based on informal evaluation

To get to the "crude" 200, SA either had to extrapolate 200 vs. 17000 or 200 vs. 1400. It look like what they did was:

1. Used only PhD as their basis.
2. Used a ratio of 3 divided ~ 21, multiplied by 1400 to get to the "200 climate researchers"

There are multiple issues with this.
1. Of the original sampling of 30, only 17 responded yay or nay.
2. What about the non-PhD researchers? Assuming that only persons with PhD's are "real" climate researchers is ludicrous.
3. The denominator in their ratio appears to be reduced by the 4 they could not locate and the 5 that did not respond. It should also have been reduced by the 3 that did not remember and the one that was dead.
4. The 6 that said they would not sign the petition were not interviewed to see if they were "real" climate rearchers. Let's assume the ratio for them is the same as the positive
responders; i.e., 3/21*6 or just less than 1 was a "real" climate researcher.
5. There is no explanation for why the 6 that would not sign again would not do so. Just because they would not sign the petioin does not mean that they have changed their viewpoint. For the numbers below though, I'll include them as if they've changed their stance.

Thus, let's correct the numbers a bit. Of the PhD pool: 3 "real" researchers of the 17 positive respondents would still sign the petition.

3/17*1400 = 247 PhD degreed climate rearchers disagree that global warming is man-made and signed the petition

Assuming the same ratio of climate researchers in the rest of the pool, 3/17*17000 = 3000 climate researchers disagree that global warming is man made and signed the petition.

This pool is based ONLY on people who heard of and decided to sign the petition.

3000 is a pretty large number. How many degreed climate researchers are there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Umm, tell me you know SOMETHING about pH and acidity. Or maybe you really NEVER had a class in the physical sciences.

I should add - I actually agree that pH shifts in the ocean are much more likely to have a major impact than the global warming effects that you are talking about - that is, CO2 would probably change the pH of oceans BEFORE it contributes enough as a greenhouse gas to cause the drastic global climate changes we hear about. But there is some buffering capacity of the oceans, and I'm not really sure that the pH will ever dip to a point that it will be corrosive to the majority of sealife. Frankly, freshwater systems seem much more likely to be affected.

However, until someone overcomes the whole inevitability argument that I have posed about 20 times now, the discussion is pointless. Further, if the CO2 levels have been anywhere near what they are now (which I currently believe to be the case), and sealife survived (there is certainly sea-life that is closely related to species that existed 100k years ago), then I don't buy the talk of catastrophe.

Moving on...

---

"inevitability argument"???? Maybe the 21st time will be the ticket.

You need to read the NG article again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...id-oceans.html

---

Another one of these scientific things you don't understand. I stand by my statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

"inevitability argument"???? Maybe the 21st time will be the ticket.

You need to read the NG article again.

---

Inevitable because of the natural carbon cycle... See the debate over quantification of ice core data and what it means to the big picture GW debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Bill, always good to hear your sincere opinion.:D However, the climate models under-estimated the amount of glacier melting on Greenland. Now, whether it was because the models were conservative or some other factor i don't know. Since you feel you know so much on this topic why don't you tell me why the models did not predict the more rapid rate of Glacier melting on Greenland?

---

Which model are you referencing that specifically predicts glacier melting in Greenland?