AGW is real-American member
AGW is real-Non-American member
AGW is not real-American member
AGW is not real-Non American member
Science Magazine: Sign In
Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030
I will try to upload more papers I find them. With regards to reports please note the following
1) I am not a scientist and have only a limited grasp of these topics.
2) The reports are from different fields of scientific endeavour
3) there are literaly dozens more that I could access to support my position but so far I am limiting myself to peer reviewed articles published in the last 12 months only. Also a lot of them have to be purchased (18-25$ a pop) - and I don't wan't to prove my point so much that I have to start explaining large holes in my bank balance to the nearest and dearest.
PS As soon as I figure out how to upload various graphics I have located I will include them as well. Hope these help "take it to the next level"
Last edited by Monash; 06 Sep 11, at 11:19.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Gunnut... Sorry for the late reply but busy, busy, busy - you know the drill. I'm not sure where to begin. But in the first instance starvation is "bad" because it involves human suffering. As for "weeding people out" I presume your POV is that this is fine (as long as you are not one of those who are "weeded"?) As for not understanding my reasoning that is fairly simple. I posited my comments on the idea that a gradual reduction in human population levels was preferable to sudden, dramatic and involuntary change. To use a loose analogy it’s the difference between a group of people travelling along a road in a car deciding they need to stop. On one hand you they can decelerate using a gentle application of the brakes. On the other they can decide to decelerate by running into the truck in front. Both methods will "stop" the car with equal effectiveness -the former is simply a lot more preferable than the latter in terms of its effects on the passengers! Same thing with global population levels - most people would, I believe agree that a gradual reduction via birth control, education, economic development and the emancipation of women etc is preferable to disease, war, famine, social disruption and whatever other mass horrors you can think up.
Man made GW (assuming it is occurring) adds another level of complexity to the problem by adding climatic change to the mix at a time when human society is least prepared to deal with it in terms of demand for food resources. As I have said previously we humans need to get over the looming "hump" in population levels which is projected to peak in the 30-40 years or so. If we can do that I beleive the next century promises to be one where the human race can really acheive its full potential - provided we get there in one piece. So GW as a "problem" comes at somewhat inconvenient time.
Last edited by Monash; 06 Sep 11, at 14:19.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Is arctic sea ice only affected if GHG is the dominant cause of warming?
The second is about rainfall and tropical cyclone activity in one region. What does this prove about AGW? Is it only possible for rainfall to lessen in this particular region if GHG is the dominant cause of warming?
The third looks like it's something about species migration. What does this prove about AGW? Do certain species only migrate if humans warm the planet?
I'm not even sure what the point of linking the next one was or what it was supposed to show regarding AGW. Did you read it?
How are any of these papers conclusions unique to AGW, thus providing evidence of AGW, as opposed to general warming over a particular period regardless of cause?
Let me quote ArmchairGeneral here: "Correlationisnotcausationcorrelationisnotcausatio nohfortheloveofCthulhucorrelationisnotcausation."
I'd suggest reading this: Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now let's clear some things up before this continues... co2 and other ghg should "play a role" in GW. You will not find any climate scientist, on either side of this debate, that says otherwise. NO climate scientist argues that co2 is not a ghg or that ghg does not play a role in warming. It is widely agreed (you can say there's a consensus) that doubling co2, by itself, should result in about 1c of warming. Beyond that, you need more than than just co2... you need positive feedback and a high climate sensitivity to get to significant warming, and that is where the debate largely is.
So if your position is, as you say,perhaps you should start with finding out what that theory actually says first, then come back with something that actually supports that position.the best scientific information currently available indicates that the theory of GW is probably correct
Last edited by Wooglin; 06 Sep 11, at 15:57.
The west has achieved what you would consider a "gradual stop." The human population is now expanding mostly in regions with people who cannot fend for themselves. We are the reason they suffer because we interfere with nature and their own path. They need to figure out how to deal with their problems. We can't deal with them. We can't just drop free food on them either. That only encourages more people, more cars, on the highway of life without brakes.
edit: Just had another thought inspired by a different thread. How about using only renewable energy source or alternative fuel to transport relief supplies to areas "affected by global warming and/or climate change?" It's for a good cause. We shouldn't trash the environment more trying to add and/or save human headcounts to this already burgeoning planet. We should only give food aid using "organic" vegitables and grain. Environment should come before people.
Last edited by gunnut; 06 Sep 11, at 22:07.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
AG - thank you for your generous offer. If you can obtain them for free that might be a good idea. I think at the moment I'll concentrate on identifying sources, potential sites/sources like the ones I have found so far. The problem is to do real justice to the debate (and to Wooglins position) I have to read all the papers I locate and try to summarise their evidence as best I can. The sites I have identified so far e.g. the Journal of the American Meteorological Society etc have a large catalogue of papers to get through and it becomes a question of time!
On the bright side though I made some enquiries with some academics and they referred me to a site called "Sceptical Science". I haven’t gone through it in detail yet but I may have hit "layman’s pay dirt" when it comes to the GW Debate. Lots of "pro GW" links including some of the sites I have found already plus detailed critiques of the anti climate change POV. It also seems to include links to papers that are either "anti" GW or just ambivalent as well (i.e. they don't produce results supporting one side or the other). Lots of media links to. I think I may rely on it extensively to "debate with Woodglin et al. I would also appreciate your POV on the site.
I have to go away this weekend but I will start working though it in detail next week plus continue my search for other sources - while also running investigations case files, organising renovations and looking after family.
As for the other three - the melting rates of artic sea ice, changes in tropical cyclone activity and alterations in animal migration patterns are linked to the topic. GW theory indicates all three are potential consequences of the process (note potential consequences). I don't think anyone will ever publish a paper that says "CO2 levels are rising = increasing global temperatures therefore, case closed.) I'll try a refine my searches but as I have said many times - I am not a scientist so my efforts won't do justice to the topic. As I said in a post to AG I have however found a very good site (I think) that may save me some time, we'll see......cheers.
Last edited by Monash; 07 Sep 11, at 14:22.
We aren't discussing any GW hypothesis, we are discussing the AGW hypothesis. What in those papers shows evidence of a ghg warming scenario as opposed to any other warming scenario? Nothing.My intention in the first instance was to answer your challenge to locate/produce peer reviewed articles from respectable sources that would tend to support the GW hypothesis.
See above. All three are potential consequences regardless of the cause of warming. Show me that the AGW theory is essentially correct, as you seem to think.As for the other three - the melting rates of artic sea ice, changes in tropical cyclone activity and alterations in animal migration patterns are linked to the topic. GW theory indicates all three are potential consequences of the process (note potential consequences).
Like I said before, you probably want to start with what that theory actually is first. Then, how do we identify and verify the cause of recent warming?
Until you understand that, you will not understand the skeptic side of the argument (or the pro side for that matter).
Last edited by Wooglin; 07 Sep 11, at 17:03.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...aeJ_story.htmlWeather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find
By Juliet Eilperin, Published: August 25
The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.
The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.
Researchers monitored the ocean’s width, height, temperature and salinity through satellites and robot-operated floats, and presented their findings Aug. 8 and 9 at the annual Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Science Team Meeting in Austin, Tex.
“This year the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” said Carmen Boening, an oceanographer and climate scientist at the lab, in a statement.
Climate scientist Josh Willis, who also works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, warned that this water will eventually return to the ocean, and the long-term trend of rising sea levels will continue.
“What this show is the impact La Niña and El Niño can have on global rainfall,” he said in an interview, adding scientists need to get a better sense of ice sheet dynamics before they can offer a more precise estimate of future sea level rise. “We really have a lot left to understand before we can do better.”
According to computer climate models, sea levels are expected to rise because water expands as it warms, and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will contribute to global sea levels. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave what it called a conservative estimate in 2007 that the ocean could rise between 7 and 23 inches by 2100. Recent research suggests it could rise by as much as 2.5 to 6.5 feet during this period.
The question of how much the ocean could rise due to warming is a topic of intense debate. In the past two decades global sea levels increased at a rate of roughly 0.12 inches a year, compared to 0.07 inches from 1961 to 2003, according to satellite data. A recent tide gauge study of sea levels in Australia and New Zealand, published in the Journal of Coastal Research, provided readings that suggested the rate of ocean rise has declined in the past decade.
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, noted that recent satellite data shows a slight decline in the rate of sea-level rise, which casts doubt on whether the ocean will expand as some predict by the end of the century.
“I suspect it would have to start rising pretty rapidly in order to fulfill those projections,” Michaels said in an interview.
The findings came as the Government Accountability Office released a report Thursday examining proposed technological methods aimed at manipulating the climate, known as ”geoengineering.”
The GAO report, commissioned by former House Science Committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), concluded that “climate engineering technologies are not now an option for addressing global climate change” given their cost, potential effectiveness and possible consequences. But the report said that the majority of experts the GAO surveyed “supported starting significant climate engineering now” in case humans faced drastic climate change in future decades.
The report identified capturing carbon dioxide from the air and then storing it as the most promising climate engineering technique right now.
Carnegie Institution scientist Ken Caldeira, an expert on climate engineering, wrote in an e-mail that he welcomed the fact that the GAO made a distinction between carbon-capture technologies and ones aimed at deflecting solar radiation. But he questioned why the analysts focused on the need for coordinating geoengineering research, rather than a broader response to the problems climate change poses.
“We need broad coordination of activities to reduce climate risk,” Caldeira wrote. “I don’t think we need coordination only among the narrower, yet very heterogeneous set of activities commonly labeled as ‘geoengineering.’ ”
I guess that's one promise The Obama kept. He said after capturing the democrat nomination in June of 2008 that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow..."
He wasn't joking.
Of course we will need more money to study how exactly this new "rain fall pattern" affects global climate. We will need to revise our "peer reviewed" conclusion that has garnered a "concensus" from the "scientific community" and further refine our "computer model" to better predict future climate.
Meanwhile, please remember that if the ocean rises, it's Bush's fault. If ocean drops, it's Obama's credit. We need to develop green energy to be sustainable and give money to 3rd world countries so they don't have to work.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
So let me get this straight- 2010's la Nina caused the sea level to drop 1/4", but the prior El Nino's had nothing to do with the sea level rises?
Sea levels go down due to ENSO, but go up due to CO2.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
Didn't someone say something years ago about 'natural variability' and get called a heretic denier or some such? I'm sure they did....
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
I'm sure this study was published by the puppets of big oil...
Oh wait, data came from NASA.
I'm sure NASA was working for Bush and his oil buddies...
Oh wait, Obama is in charge now...
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)