Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Al Gore and the carbon credits (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Al Gore and the carbon credits
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had originally intended to ignore all this but the story is rapidly approaching the absurd end of the hypocrisy scale. For those in a cave last week, let's recap: Al Gore won an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth". The next day, he was outed by some Tennessee group on his utility bill and exposed for his mansion consuming about 20 times the energy of the typical American home. The Gore's gas and electric bill for their Nashville mansion was $30,000 in 2006 (Jesus Christ, what the hell is he doing in there?). So now he's open to the accusation of hypocrisy.

Except, Gore is buying "carbon offsets"; a payment someone makes to an environmentally friendly entity to compensate for personally using non-green energy. This is not a new concept, the Catholic Church had indulgences and we had sumptuary law in the middle ages. Carbon offsets are merely the latest incarnation of those 'scams' and are just as ridiculous - ask the New York Times. But if you're a believer then I guess carbon offsets may somehow seem reasonable. Even if Gore is not hypocritical in relying on them to finance a lavish lifestyle none of us could afford should his vision come to pass, it makes him look ridiculous none the less and I was prepared to let it go with that.

Except now its gotten laughable. Anyone know who he's buying the carbon offsets from? I bet if you think of the most absurd person he could buy them from, you might get it. Gore is buying his "offsets" from a company called Generation Investment Management - which he co-founded, and for which he serves as chairman link .

Get it? Al Gore buys his carbon offsets from ... Al Gore! His so called carbon neutral lifestyle is a shell game. I had thought he was only a clown with this environmental/carbon offset game and his $30K annual utility bill (seriously, what is he doing to use that much juice?), this pretty much makes him a hypocritical clown however you slice it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately, the truth of global warming does not rest on the integrity of Al Gore. While his personal actions may be shameful, it does not change the facts and how we should respond to the facts.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
caladbolg1125
Member
Member # 3666

 - posted      Profile for caladbolg1125   Email caladbolg1125   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Eek!] Oh my god, a hypocrit in politics, unlikely, neh?

I agree. Carry on Wayward Son. (I've been waiting weeks to get that out [Smile] )

Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The truth of global warming is this: The globe is in a current warming trend.

Whether that is due to man made activity, or cycles of intensity of the Sun's solar activity is a highly debated and controversial topic - both of which have strong arguements and some evidence to corroborate their respective theory's accuracy...but the debate and solid proof are far from settled. But folks like Al Gore act as if it is a settled debate because they are using it to push a political agenda rather than a purely scientific inquiry into an obsevable phenomena.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Carry on Wayward Son. (I've been waiting weeks to get that out [Smile] )
"Once I rose above the noise and confusion.
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion.
I was soaring ever higher,
Then I found Ornery..."

(With apologies to Kansas. [Smile] )

[ March 02, 2007, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But folks like Al Gore act as if it is a settled debate because they are using it to push a political agenda rather than a purely scientific inquiry into an obsevable phenomena.
Question Daruma: How many scientists does it take to settle a scientific debate?

How many scientists must agree before something is settled, and debate can move on to the specifics of a subject?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Fortunately, the truth of global warming does not rest on the integrity of Al Gore. While his personal actions may be shameful, it does not change the facts and how we should respond to the facts.

The facts? I don't think anyone actually has those yet. Tons of hype but damn few facts. I think one fact is that global warming is right in the middle of jumping the shark - hurricane season 2006 is my bet for the exact moment. Remember, it was supposed to be a catastrophe of multiple Katrina's hitting us? Al Gore and all the scientists with their perfected computer models told us so. Except it wasn't. When the leaders of the environmental movement (or any movement for that matter) become blatant objects of ridicule even their own followers can no longer defend, the writings on the wall.

Science fiction author James P Hogan gives us a glimpse of this same tired story happening before:
quote:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

Notice the time progression? As we move through time into a more informed society, the time for fear mongering grows shorter and shorter. 40 years on the first cycle, 30 on the next, then 20. With the power of the internet, maybe we shorten to 15 years? Maybe we do, the trend is starting:
quote:
RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again."
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

And from National Geographic:
quote:
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
By 2015, we're going to be back to global cooling and the next ice age.

[ March 02, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
But folks like Al Gore act as if it is a settled debate because they are using it to push a political agenda rather than a purely scientific inquiry into an obsevable phenomena.
Question Daruma: How many scientists does it take to settle a scientific debate?

How many scientists must agree before something is settled, and debate can move on to the specifics of a subject?

How many scientists argue about the LAW of Gravity?

I'm not claiming to know more than a scientist, but I certainly recognize that the issue is far from settled when plenty of scientist say one thing and plenty of others say something else.

quote:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.



[ March 02, 2007, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll add just one more from Dr. Timothy Ball:
quote:
... my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. -- emphasis is mine
Global cooling, jump on the band wagon now so you can claim you were among the first to take the threat seriously!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The facts? I don't think anyone actually has those yet. Tons of hype but damn few facts. I think one fact is that global warming is right in the middle of jumping the shark - hurricane season 2006 is my bet for the exact moment. Remember, it was supposed to be a catastrophe of multiple Katrina's hitting us? Al Gore and all the scientists with their perfected computer models told us so. Except it wasn't. When the leaders of the environmental movement (or any movement for that matter) become blatant objects of ridicule even their own followers can no longer defend, the writings on the wall.
Which is why you should avoid relying on the hype and concentrate on the science.

For one, no one says the computer models are "perfected." One of the hopes of climatologists is that they can get better computers to make more precise estimates of how the climate system interacts. No one is saying it is perfect. But there are some good estimates of how imperfect it is, and they all point toward man-made climate change.

And the hurricane/global warming relationship is pretty well established. Hurricane strength comes from the heat released by ocean water. We've known that for years. (My wife learned that in a community college class a few years ago.) So if the Earth is warming--something that even Daruma agrees is true--hurricanes will tend to be stronger. Period.

This year, I understand that dust from the Sahara cooled the Atlantic ocean a bit, enough to mitigate some of the warming. But do you want to rely on that year after year?

And contrary to what you might have heard, water temperature is not the cause of hurricanes. That is a much more complex process. So global warming may not cause more hurricanes. But if the Atlantic gets warmer--and if the Earth's average temperature continues to increase, it must--then hurricanes will on average get stronger.

That a fact, no matter how many hurricanes jump sharks. [Smile]

Which is why the behavior of the spokesmen doesn't matter in the long run. Because if the facts are there--and, increasingly, they are becoming more established--someone else will become the spokesman. Facts have a way of doing that.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many scientists argue about the LAW of Gravity?
Gravity is not governed by a complex system. Discrete experimentation can be performed to quantify gravity and predict it's effects. Climate is much more difficult, but the fact that a preponderance of climatologists believe that anthropogenic warming is occurring indicates to me that while continued research goes on we should be making an effort to solve this apparent problem.

There will always be dissenters to a theory, particularly one that relies on as much complex data and analysis as global warming. Abdussamatov got a lot of press because it's sexy when a non-crank scientists disagrees with the predominant theory. The fact is that a number of solar warming theories have come and gone over the years and now even advocates of those theories no longer reject that humans are a/the major factor in global warming.

As far as being wrong in the past - we've only recently developed powerful enough computational platforms and sophisticated enough models to really be able to make any sort of reasonable predictions about climate behavior and that technology is improving constantly. Note that global warming has remained the predominant theory throughout the computer age. I'd give much more credence to ANY current scientific theories than those from decades ago.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The truth of global warming is this: The globe is in a current warming trend."

Amen. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of carbon emissions being reduced for whatever reason. I think Al Gore provides the consummate demonstration of this principle.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So if the Earth is warming--something that even Daruma agrees is true...

Even Daruma is wrong about the warming. The earth was warming, now it's cooling. The facts are beginning to roll in on this and show that we've ended the warming phase and are entering the cooling phase(links for that all above).

As you can see from Hogan's collection above, it's s cyclical thing for both the planet, the scientists and the politicians.


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Because if the facts are there--and, increasingly, they are becoming more established--someone else will become the spokesman. Facts have a way of doing that.

As you've seen, they're not becoming more established. Facts are questioned and hypotheses discarded. Science has a way of doing that.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Even Daruma is wrong about the warming. The earth was warming, now it's cooling. The facts are beginning to roll in on this and show that we've ended the warming phase and are entering the cooling phase(links for that all above)."

I think we need a bi5t more time to conmfirm such a trend. However, natural meteorological history indicates we are due for a cooling trend circa 2020, so maybe things are a bit off...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but the fact that a preponderance of climatologists believe that anthropogenic warming is occurring indicates to me that while continued research goes on we should be making an effort to solve this apparent problem.
The only fact established here is that a preponderance of climatologists believe.

Never forget that much of todays research grants and funding come from political sources who will pay the big $$ to get the research results they want to push their political agenda -- and that goes for both the left and the right, the conservative and the liberal.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I recall from readings I did months ago, the earth's average temp. has risen .25 of a degree in the past 100 years.

If there is new data showing a trend for cooling, that wouldn't surprise me either.

The Earth's climate has always been cyclical, which is why we have ice ages and warm periods that have occurred over and over and over again long before man first emitted carbon into the atmosphere.

I'm not saying anthropomorphic global warming is false or impossible. I'm saying it's far from proven, and making political decisions based on absolute proof reeks of political agenda rather than scientific advancement.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many scientists argue about the LAW of Gravity?
You mean Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, that describes gravity as a distortion of space-time? There's a handful, if you believe the creationists.

How many scientists argue about the basic principles that are used to model the climate? About as many as argue against General Relativity. Perhaps fewer.

And that's the thing. No one argues about the basic science. No one disbelieves that, if the Earth gets warmer, hurricanes will get stronger. Those facts have been established. What they argue about is whether the models accurately reflect the complex system that controls our climate and whether we have accurately measured the factors.

The primary question is who argues about it. If half the climatologists believe one thing, and the other half believe another, then there is a legitimate debate going on. If 70% believe one thing, and 30% believe another, that is still a debate. If 99% believe something to be true, and 1% believe something else, is that still a debate? How about 99.999% vs. 0.001%?

That's why I asked. Because I'm under the impression that something like 90 percent of climatologists--those who actually study this for a living--believe in man-made global warming. If, after staring at the data all day, most believe, there is a very good chance that something is going on.

Now I'm not saying that global warming is as established as the theory of gravity. But from what I've heard, the scientific studies mainly point toward man-made global warming (or, more accurately, man-made climate change, because global warming does not imply that the whole world will become uniformly warmer).

If 9 flags are pointing one way, and 1 flag is pointing another, is there really any question which way the wind is blowing? And if there is, how many flags need to blow the same way?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
As far as being wrong in the past - we've only recently developed powerful enough computational platforms and sophisticated enough models to really be able to make any sort of reasonable predictions about climate behavior and that technology is improving constantly. Note that global warming has remained the predominant theory throughout the computer age. I'd give much more credence to ANY current scientific theories than those from decades ago.

I bet there was something similar said during every warming/cooling cycle listed above. We always thought we had finally mastered the science and all that was left to master was flying cars.

There's no reason to believe the computational power adds any validity to the theories - it's still garbage in, garbage out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Because I'm under the impression that something like 90 percent of climatologists--those who actually study this for a living--believe in man-made global warming. If, after staring at the data all day, most believe, there is a very good chance that something is going on.

There was a time when 90% of astronomers --those who actually studied the cosmos for a living-- believed the sun rotated around the Earth. If, after staring at the sun all day, most believed that, there is a very good chance they were blind.

Oh man, that works on so many levels. [Big Grin]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The facts are beginning to roll in on this and show that we've ended the warming phase and are entering the cooling phase(links for that all above).
I hope your right. But the fact that most climatologists disagree--the professionals--makes me more than a bit skeptical.

quote:
Never forget that much of todays research grants and funding come from political sources who will pay the big $$ to get the research results they want to push their political agenda -- and that goes for both the left and the right, the conservative and the liberal.
But also remember that these conclusions are based on the measurements that they make. Faking measurements or skewing the calculations, when discovered, will get you booted out of the field faster than losing a grant. And most scientists, especially those who publish in peer-reviewed journals--are more interested in their peer acceptance than any political party's acceptance.

In science, you get acclaim for proving something true, not for proving a political point. Which means I have more faith in scientists getting it right than the political pundits who criticize from the sidelines.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So we should just go with the answer we're most comfortable with because no matter how many scientists hold an informed opinion about a subject, there's a non-zero possibility that they are all wrong?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's no reason to believe the computational power adds any validity to the theories - it's still garbage in, garbage out.
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Can you name three of the theories that actually go into the computations for the global climate models? And why they are "garbage?"

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
But the fact that most climatologists disagree--the professionals--makes me more than a bit skeptical.

I'm not so sure about "most". Most of those you read about point to global warming, true, but there's a chilling effect in global warming research (I am on a roll!) for those that disagree.

There's been several examples in the news lately of crackdowns attempted on those that disagree with the consensus what with that thing from the weather channel recently and Dr. Ball speaks to it in his article. I'm not entirely sure you're hearing all the voices as it certainly has the appearance that more than a few are too intimidated to come forward.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
There's no reason to believe the computational power adds any validity to the theories - it's still garbage in, garbage out.
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Can you name three of the theories that actually go into the computations for the global climate models? And why they are "garbage?"

Now, now, there's no reason to get upset and go all personal.

How about Hurricane Catastrophe 2006 and that Sahara sand thing? The models didn't account for it did they? Will they account for it next year? Can you even name three of computing languages most widely used for creating global climate models? And what hardware platforms they run on?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's why you may think there's such consensus among scientists on global warming:
quote:
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
Obviously from the UK, but the same pressure extend across all the geographies.

EDIT: BTW, that article discusses the cooling trend that began 1998. We're cooling ...

[ March 02, 2007, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two further points on this topic:

1) With regards to the National Geo article about Mars warming and the Earth too as a possible result of cyclical solar activity, I think Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit makes a damn good point:

quote:
Right or not, this doesn't matter to me -- as I've noted before, I think we should be trying to minimize our burning of fossil fuels for lots of other reasons. But it does suggest that people should be wary of getting too far ahead of the science. And if this explanation turns out to be correct, overselling global warming could lead to a backlash in which efforts to reduce pollution lose credibility, which would be bad as we should be reducing pollution regardless of global warming.
2)Humorous quote from a blogger linked to by Reynolds:

quote:
Obviously, Abdussamatov is a tool of big oil, because the cause of Martian warming is the all-terrain vehicle that energy-wasting Americans carelessly sent to Mars to pollute their environment. It’s not enough that we’re destroying our planet, we’re now intent on destroying the entire galaxy.
[LOL]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
So we should just go with the answer we're most comfortable with because no matter how many scientists hold an informed opinion about a subject, there's a non-zero possibility that they are all wrong?

No, you should become informed and develop your own opinion. I'm certain you and most others are fully capable of it even on such a 'complex' topic as global cooling.

Wayward Son implies that he believes the computer models are more accurate than I believe them to be but I point to the abject failure of those models to accurately model hurricane season 2006. He accuses me of not knowing what I'm talking about. What do you think - how accurate are those models? Obviously something was wrong with them then. Were they drastically improved since the last hurricane season? Are they potentially missing something as monumental as the effect the Sahara sands had?

Have you followed any dissenting opinion? Does it not concern you immensely, given the stakes, that the dissenting voices are being intimidated into silence? How do you know the number of scientists supporting the man made global warming are the majority given such intimidation? What does that tell us about the "science" if opponents are ridiculed and threatened?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"Even Daruma is wrong about the warming. The earth was warming, now it's cooling. The facts are beginning to roll in on this and show that we've ended the warming phase and are entering the cooling phase(links for that all above)."

I think we need a bi5t more time to conmfirm such a trend. However, natural meteorological history indicates we are due for a cooling trend circa 2020, so maybe things are a bit off...

How much time? We're basing global warming theory on a roughly 25 year trend. Global temps flatlined and began a small decrease in 1998 (links for that above). That's over 8 years of trend for cooling, when do you think it will be long enough to be confirmed 'fact'?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now, now, there's no reason to get upset and go all personal.
Not personal. Just accurate. [Big Grin]

In order to write a computer program to model the climate, you have to start with "laws" of physics. Thermodynamic laws, convection laws, all those sorts of numerical laws that physicists have been creating over the past couple of centuries. I can't even imagine how you'd create a line of programming to simulate a physical process without using an established law.

quote:
How about Hurricane Catastrophe 2006 and that Sahara sand thing? The models didn't account for it did they? Will they account for it next year?
I bet they will. What climatologists want more than "proving" global warming is a program that will accurately model weather. That will get them in the history books. And because that is how scientists work. They make a prediction, look at the results, and, if the prediction doesn't match the results, try to find out why. Correcting the model is a top priority--regardless of the results for global warming.

quote:
Can you even name three of computing languages most widely used for creating global climate models? And what hardware platforms they run on?
I don't really know what languages are actually used, although I would bet that C++ is probably one of them.

I think the Craig supercomputers are used as the platforms. Whatever the fastest current computers are, because the models run so very many calculations to get the results. (If the models weren't so complex, they could make predictions without doing the calculations.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I don't really know what languages are actually used, although I would bet that C++ is probably one of them.

I think the Craig supercomputers are used as the platforms. Whatever the fastest current computers are, because the models run so very many calculations to get the results. (If the models weren't so complex, they could make predictions without doing the calculations.)

Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? [Razz]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WaywardSon,

FYI, there is no such thing as a Craig supercomputer. I suspect that you mean Cray supercomuter.

I claim no knowledge concerning how climate models might have been coded in the past or in what languages, but I doubt that such a model would be coded directly in C++. Most likely C++, or C#, or Java, or another similar language would be used to develop a higher level Symbolic or Rules based language in which the climate model would then be coded, but unless you are involved in the process you never know do you? Perhaps a symbolic mathematical language such as Mathematica would be a good starting point.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
He got the brand name wrong, but he's correct that climatologists use "the fastest current computers." Some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world were developed specifically for climate modeling. They are one-of-a-kind installations so it's very possible that the method of providing data and computing models is proprietary.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just looked up the system NASA uses for climate modeling (6th fastest in the world). It runs a custom version of Linux and supports software written in FORTRAN, C, and C++.

The 5th fastest supercomputer, MareNostrum, is also used for climate modeling and also runs on a distribution of Linux. It likely also supports FORTRAN, C, and C++, as these are the standard languages used in academia.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

The "Shell Answer Man" doesn't count. [Smile]

I talked about these voucher things a long time ago because the practice is rampant here in Houston and on Refinery Row. Which means we don't eliminate pollution we just shift the plant it comes from and the oil companies pay a small fine when they can't shift it.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How much time? We're basing global warming theory on a roughly 25 year trend. Global temps flatlined and began a small decrease in 1998 (links for that above). That's over 8 years of trend for cooling, when do you think it will be long enough to be confirmed 'fact'?"

It's confirmed fact now. But whether that 10-year confirmed fact is a turnaround of many-decades' year warming trend or just a brief eddy downward before the thermostat cranks up takes time to tell.

I'm neither for nor agin any of this, although my personal intuition is that we have influenced the climate to some extent.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
He got the brand name wrong, but he's correct that climatologists use "the fastest current computers."

I was making a bit of a joke. It's completely irrelevant if he knows what language or platform these things are run on - just as it's irrelevant if I know the three things he trotted out to take his somewhat personal shot at me.

What we do need to know is that the models have been deeply flawed at least up until last year. So much so that they missed hurricane season 2006 completely. So flawed that they do not account for the global cooling trends we've experienced since 1998 and will see for the next 20-30 years. Obviously they've missed something in their calculations (like Sahara sands). As I said before; garbage in, garbage out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So flawed that they do not account for the global cooling trends we've experienced since 1998 and will see for the next 20-30 years.
I'm just curious: since your assertion is that all the models are deeply flawed, how can you be so confident that we're going to continue cooling for twenty years?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His models aside, natural history suggests that, beginning roughly 2010 or 2020 (I fergit), there will be a natural cooling cycle. Typically, it's hell on European agriculture. Don't know about elsewhere.

Question: will that cycle be bumped by industrial carbon?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing I find a little entertaining about this thread is that people who work in the field don't call the phenomenon "Global Warming," and haven't for a while.

We (Well, THEY- I defected from the field) refer to it as "Climate Change," because different locations experience the phenomenon differently- some places cool, some places warm, depending on ocean currents, wind currents, particulates, etc etc etc.

Scientists in this field DO NOT explicitly rely on computer simulations as the basis of their opinion... in fact, I can name several studies that don't rely on temperature or computer simulations to show broad scale effects of climate change.

Regarding the debate about anthropogenic causes:
Thing one, there are some facts. Fact one: humans are the source of large-scale C02 emissions. Fact two: an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. So, logically it would follow that we are contributing to the phenomenon.

Thing two, a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels seems like a pretty good idea regardless, no? So policy-making and discussion could proceed without having to have a full-on consensus about the role of humans in Climate Change.

Thing three, assuming that there are external causes, do you not then REALLY need to quit bickering about mechanisms and deal with the consequences?

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

I found the "lag time" between reports on this rather interesting. The article from 1975 claims "global cooling" began in 1940, while we have articles from the 1950's claiming Global Warming is in progress. Granted, we have better tools available to use now in regards to knowing what the Earth's temperature actually is than they had back then. (satelite telemetry + remote unmanned sensors > what they had)

Like I think some others in this thread belive, it isn't that we doubt the validity of the Climitalogical Models that the Climatologists are using, at least when it comes to most of what they're modeling.

What we do doubt is that their model includes accurate information regarding everything that can impact the enviroment. Particularly since we didn't really have an ability to actively monitor global climate trends in progress until roughly 50 years ago. Yes they can do all kinds of forensic work to show what past trends were, and what evidence was left behind.

However, that doesn't change the fact that forensic science can only take you so far. Beyond that point, you need "live observations" to work from. Which isn't to mention that the Earth's Climate is billion's of years old. We are only presently able to get reliable glimpses of it, through forensics, running back to not even a million years(ice core samples) ago.

We know there are natural cycles at work, and we know there are multiple cycles running concurently to boot. Some are long, some are short. We might possibly be caught in one of those very long cycles which is perfectly normal and natural. We just simply happen to be in the first instance of this particular cycle where we are able to pick up on it with our current knowledge of how things work.

..I'm also wondering if CO2 may have some other side-effect to it that we don't fully understand. Kind of like the indirect answer they got on the contribution airplanes are having on global warming after September 11th when the US grounded all non-government aircraft. (Namely that their con trails were effectively zero-sum contributors. It didn't make things hotter -- quite the opposite actually, it moderated the extremes by about 1.5 degrees on both sides of the themometer.)

edit to fix markup error

[ March 05, 2007, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1