Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_
 Share

Recommended Posts

An article in Scientific American details a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reporting that forests' other climatic effects can cancel out their carbon cleaning advantage in some parts of the world.

Here is an interesting excerpt:

Apparently, these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet. In fact, according to this model, by the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.
Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting excerpt:

Now, if we were to act like Global Warming Alarmists, we would have to call for the IMMEDIATE CLEARCUTTING OF ALL FORESTS WORLDWIDE, RIGHT NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE EVEN THOUGH WE PROBABLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF SUCH AN ACT AND IT WOULD BANKRUPT HALF THE WORLD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, you are a serious bunch.

I am kidding about my 8 degrees statement, it was an obvious joke I thought! :D

The original statement, I do not believe either, it came from a report from the UN or some such body a week or two ago.

My big mistake was not giving the source of that.

Sorry for any confusion guys, I thought it was obvious I didn't believe the statements!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here is a great example of deductive reasoning relating to Global Warming. This letter was actually printed in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. I double checked their official web site to make sure it wasn't a fake. I can't believe the scientists haven't thought of this before. :lol: (The URL I got the scan from is http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg)

post-3100-1177507950_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arkamsas Denocrat Gazette sure does have am excellemt editorial staff. I'n always pleased to see a mewspaper capable of tellimg the differemce betweem Ns amd Ms.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A friend of mine has conducted a little research after reading a link that was posted here, and has given me permission to post it here.

I am not posting it here for the purpose of having a discussion about it, just because he seems to have brought up important facts.

The original article is: The global warming test- question 4.

Here is his reply (words of the article writer are marked by " " ):

_____________________________________________________________________

The website suffers from numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings. In fact it

looks like the author does on purpose, so as to push his agenda instead of

contributing to the reader's understanding.

"...CO2 levels and temperatures were both on the rise a long time before humans

built factories or drove cars! ..."

- according to an ice core analysis, published in Nature 399, 429-436 ("Climate

and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core,

Antarctica") , the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is

unprecedented over the past 420Kyears. Not only that, but another research,

published in Nature 406, 695-699 ("Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations

over the past 60 million years ") shows that not since 20Myears ago have CO2

concentrations approached their current level. Finally, numerous studies, for

example ,Nature 398, 121-126 ("Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2

trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica") , show that the current rate of

increase of atmospheric CO2 is at least one full order of magnitude more than

that observed over the past 20,000 years.

"Carbon dioxide is really a tiny constituent of our atmosphere-- comprising less

than 4/100 of 1% of all gases present (360 ppm)"

- this statement is totally irrelevant to the debate - a poison can be only

1/1000 of 1% of a meal, and still kill a human. And he doesn't mention the fact

that before 1750AD, CO2 levels were stable around 280+-10 ppm, and has risen

monotonously since then, with a current value of 367 ppm. Most of that increase

came in the last century - something that is unprecedented in history.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been steadily increasing for the last

18,000 years, coinciding with an interruption in the Ice Age and the subsequent

onset of global warming" -

like shown above - this statement is completely misleading or even false - a

"steady rise" is hardly the words that describe the current situation

"Atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with CO2 in our oceans." -

ideally, that should be the case. However, it appears from various studies that

the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is forcing the oceans to

dissolve more CO2 (Le Chatelier's Principle). In fact, measurements have shown

that in the past two decades, oceans have been consistently uptaking CO2 from

the atmosphere, at a rate of about -1.8+-0.5 billion tonnes of carbon per year

- see for instance Nature, 373, 326-330 ("Changes in oceanic and terrestrial

carbon uptake since 1982") or Science, 290, 1342-1346 ("Regional changes of CO2

fluxes over land and oceans since 1980"). This net intake of CO2 by the oceans

is less than half of the output of CO2 into the athmosphere by fossil fuel

burning and other human activities which at this point is about 6.6 billions of

tonnes CO2 per year.

"Approximately 186 billion tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the

atmosphere each year. Of this total over 96% is from natural sources "

- this statement is, again, misleading because it refers to the overall amount

of CO2 exhanged between the athmosphere and oceans/land through seasonal

emissions and uptake from plants and the like. The important figure is net

emissions/uptake which as I described above stand at about -1.8+-0.5 Billions

of tonnes/year at the air-ocean interface, -1.4+-0.7 Btonnes/year at the

land-air interface, and +6.3+-0.4 Btonnes/yr emissions due to human activities.

Summed, this corresponds very well to the observed +3.2+-01 Btonnes/yr of

athmospheric CO2 rates rise as documented for example in Nature, 375, 666-670

("Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since

1980"). In short, the available data completely contradict the "oceans release

CO2" hypothesis, and further strengthen the anthropogenic theory.

"Most carbon dioxide is eventually locked up in ocean sediments as phytoplankton

die and the carbon in their bodies falls to the ocean floor."

- wasn't the main idea that oceans release CO2?

"Carbon dioxide from all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013% of the

greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere" -

it is very unclear how did he arrive at this figure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell your friend that I don't trust Nature magazine any more than I trust Pravda, in the same way and for the same reason. Nature has openly refused to publish any information which contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Did you even bother to look at any of the articles he cited and examine the data and the method it was gained?

You have to be real crazy to just dismiss scientific articles of a scientific magazine with an excellent name in the scientific community, without even taking a look at the articles.

Or maybe not crazy, but certainly not interested in the truth. When someone is interested in the truth they bother to actually examine evidence presented to them by someone. You just dismiss scientific evidence without giving a scientific reason.

I may not know a lot about global warming, but I know this approach is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even bother to look at any of the articles he cited and examine the data and the method it was gained?

You have to be real crazy to just dismiss scientific articles of a scientific magazine with an excellent name in the scientific community, without even taking a look at the articles.

Or maybe not crazy, but certainly not interested in the truth. When someone is interested in the truth they bother to actually examine evidence presented to them by someone. You just dismiss scientific evidence without giving a scientific reason.

I may not know a lot about global warming, but I know this approach is flawed.

How interested would you be in what a magazine publishes if they openly and outright refuse to publish anything which contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming, regardless of its scientific merit? Nature magazine may have an excellent name in the scientific community, but so does The Daily Worker in certain communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering, because the information is so diffuse in this 21-page conversation, if somebody could condense the general claims that are made here about what is indeed causing the global temperatures to rise (as I understand it, most people claim it is a rise in the energy produced by the sun) and what the evidence for this are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
GLOBAL warming alarmists actually make a great deal of sense. That is, once you imagine that every time they open their mouths they're talking not about the environment but about Islamic terrorism.

Thus spake Australian journalist Tim Blair.

JJM

Edited by John McVey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I am presently reading about the Svensmark theory of climate change in The Chilling Stars. It contains some fascinating observations.

The Svensmark theory is essentially the theory that cosmic rays are a great influence on global temperature. When more cosmic rays (from distant exploding supernovae) bombard the Earth, they aid the formulation of more low clouds which in turn serve as shields to reflect the rays of the sun. However, when the sun is more active, it exhibits a more tumultuous magnetic field and in turn is more likely to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth.

I found this to be interesting: the average temperature fluctuation of Antartica has been vastly different from the rest of the planet. This is important because the distribution of carbon dioxide (which is supposedly the intermediary in the theory of anthropagenic global warming) is essentially uniform throughout the planet. However, Antartica has recently had a much greater accumulation of low clouds. This is great evidence for clouds being a significant influence on global temperature.

How interested would you be in what a magazine publishes if they openly and outright refuse to publish anything which contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming, regardless of its scientific merit?

Do you have any examples of disgruntled scientists whose research was turned down by Nature but was recognized in other mediums? You probably have already posted such material, but I am presently unable to locate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

According to an article in Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland was much greener. Specifically, the article claims that

The ice sheet on Greenland, therefore, is more stable than some scientists previously believed and "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial," Willerslev says. "Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."

Glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study, agrees: "Something else," possibly Antarctica, must have provided the water for global sea level rise "because this observation does not at all affect [that] estimate … only the estimate of where the water came from."

The emphasis is mine. The bold section in particular is contradictory to claims on Greenland advanced by Al Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dr Hansen, and NASA generally, have been caught cooking the books on global warming data. Some scientists reverse engineered the analytical algorithms Dr Hansen had been using, discovered errors, reported them to NASA, and NASA had no option but to fix their GISS data. As a result, the hottest year in the US has been revealed to be 1934, NOT 1998 as the warmingmongers kept harping on about. As others in the blogosphere have noted, so much for the science being settled.

The puzzling thing is, as has also been noted around the blogosphere, there haven't even been any violent denunciations of this. Instead, other than a mention on Fox News and a few minor bits here and there, there has been near complete silence. It is not as though it was a nuts conspiracy theory that wasn't worth mentioning, it was a real problem and NASA had to take genuine corrective action. What has been happening is that the scientists' website, climateaudit.org, has been hit with DoS attacks and now the site is down. Other sites covering the issue include here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The technical change is about 1-2%, but that's not the issue. This is not the first time that pro-warming 'scientists' have been guilty of incompetence and deceit. The real issue is that people's respect for consensus, for the taking seriously the idea that opposition to the warmingmongers is merely fossil-fuel industry propaganda, and so on, is beginning to shatter. As one commenter put it:

The point to take from all of this, is that the thralls to the climate orthodoxy are losing their fear and awe of the holy climate church’s proclamations.

The house of cards is beginning its inexorable slow motion fall. The holy cardinals maintain their deliberate pomp and ceremony of self-importance, but they are beginning to lose their hold on the underlings.

It moves.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Hansen, and NASA generally, have been caught cooking the books on global warming data. Some scientists reverse engineered the analytical algorithms Dr Hansen had been using, discovered errors, reported them to NASA, and NASA had no option but to fix their GISS data. As a result, the hottest year in the US has been revealed to be 1934, NOT 1998 as the warmingmongers kept harping on about. As others in the blogosphere have noted, so much for the science being settled.

Thanks for that info on Hansen. That news has been getting out through talk radio, at the very least.

Another point to add perspective to claim of "Hottest year on record", is to keep in mind that the hottest year "on record" is a relatively short stretch of time, going back to the 1800s when we were coming out of a very cold period. It was hotter 1000 years ago than now, and even hotter 4000 years ago than now. In fact, if you look at the last 10,000 years, we look to be in a relatively mild period. I'm of the belief that they leave these facts unstated deliberately so as to confuse people.

In the first segment of this documentary (about 10 minutes long), Doomsday Called Off, the scientist Jorgen Steffenson, a glaciologist, makes that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

oh goody, just to add some more mysticism to it all...

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists...on a ship in the Arctic... religious leaders gathered to make a silent "prayer for the planet".

They stopped short of openly asking a deity to reverse global warming, but their vigil symbolises a growing consensus between religions on the seriousness of global warming. "Whatever denomination we are, we will try to proclaim loud and clear that we should, we must, pay attention to the water resources and climate change," said Cardinal Thomas McCarrick, who represented the Roman Catholic church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...