Author Topic: Global warming update  (Read 2354 times)

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Global warming update
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2007, 06:47:10 PM »
Dadano, what IPCC doesn't say is what are these models based on. The truth is that we barely understand the underlying physics. MANY of the parameters in the model are either plugged in (where we have no model to describe them) or are based on very simplified modeling.

For example, CO2 levels are not fully calculated in some of the models. They ASSUME a certain CO2 level and use that for the calculations. Other models do attempt to calculate it more rigorously, but has been shown to be wrong by a factor of 2 or more when compared to test data. Cloud formation is something which have a very significant effect on the energy budget, but we have no real model for. So, yes, these models predict a global warming, but are they really modeling reality? From experience with computer models in astrophysics, I'm very suspicious of their results.

The biggest problem for these models is how to explain the excellent inverse correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. The models do not predict solar activity, and earth is not very likely to affect the sun. Something very big, which we do not understand, is missing from the modeling. Some suggest that it has to do with cosmic radiation which affect cloud formation and some composition of the atmosphere. Solar wind regulate this radiation. Also, our locations in the galaxy is changing. A passage of one of the galactic spiral arms may also have a great effect on the amount of cosmic radiation we get.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Odee

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2718
      • 49th Fighter Group
Global warming update
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2007, 07:06:36 PM »
There you go... Bozon for saying in far fewer words than I, what needed being said

Quote
Originally posted by Dadano
1. What does this have to do with the debate?

2. False. Every single contributor is an accomplished academic.

3. In what ways is the data "halfarsed, halfbaked..", please elaborate.

4. What you are looking for is Paeleoclimatic information.Does NOAA suffice?
An excerpt:

5. As posted above, I have not seen that movie.

1 Answer the question "Why the other planets are experienceing global warming too, and you can see that man has nothing to do with it.  Same as Earth.  Man is not  the culprit, it's the planet itself.

2 These are all charlatans with no scientific proof!  A real scientist would weigh in all the factors, not take a piece of it and say "this is so".  What evidence they do show is only miniscule.  And... there are not enough computers on this planet yet that can plot all the vagaries involved with accurate weather patterns, and trends for tomorrow.  Let alon 25 years in the future.

3 See "2" above as well as absolutely no impirical evidence.

4 Been there read that, interesting theories at the least... but none of this is taken into account in that report.  If they had, it would have blown their 'theory' out of the water.

5.  What movie?  He make a movie about being the father of the internet too? :O

Beh... Most of you hipocrates have already made up your midget minds that Bush started global warming and we are all doomed to drown in 100 feet of water covering NYC, NY (which is pure BS to begin with).  These same, self serving hipocrates will never let their luxuries go... their MTV, IPOD, PLASTIC world of goods.  Their Tech-toy, SUV, Econocars, nor even the Atomic energy (BTW - Walt Disney did a grand PR job for that one alone.  "Electricity for pennies"  LOL When they went online, it was dollars for energy, not pennies.)

Ethanol... whooo-buddy is that a scam and a half!  Somebody made a fortune in corn futures over that one, and the stuff is dirtier than the gas we used before.  Takes twice as much to get the same gas milage.  You see any of these Global Warming doom-n-gloomers driving electric hybrids?  See any of them questioning the automakers "Why do we need cars that go 160 mph on already crowded highways?"

 Hell, I bet not even 1% of the band wagon is willing to give up a thing in the name of making the climate more stable.  These people that cry the most about change the world, need to look in their own damn yard first and take care of that before butting in on someone elses turf.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 07:10:31 PM by Odee »
~Nobodee~   Get Poached!
Elite: Dangerous ~ Cmd Odeed

http://www.luxlibertas.com/

Offline Dadano

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
Global warming update
« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2007, 08:20:50 PM »
Good post Bozon.

Quote
Other models do attempt to calculate it more rigorously, but has been shown to be wrong by a factor of 2 or more when compared to test data.

Interesting. Can you point me to some sources?
Quote
They ASSUME a certain CO2 level and use that for the calculations.

But what of ice core samples juxtaposed to contemporary data? At what point in the calculation is the assumption?

I apprciate your post Bozon! Good stuff!:aok

Then we have Odee...

Quote
Most of you hipocrates have already made up your midget minds that Bush started global warming and we are all doomed to drown in 100 feet of water covering NYC


We need not turn this into a political pissing match. Bozon succeeded in posting his viewpoint without doing so and it is very much appreciated. Follow his lead, do some research, lets debate!
Dano
Army of Muppets

"Furballing is a disease, and we are the cure... Oink."
-Twitchy

Offline Odee

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2718
      • 49th Fighter Group
Global warming update
« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2007, 09:12:41 PM »
I'm not making it politcial...  The majority of airheads believein man is heating up the world do that well enough without my help...

Can't have a debate when one side refuses to consider all factors...  The GW Band Wagon bases their facts on incomplete and inaccurate tables and models, and when cornered on it, they go "pooh-pooh" and switch the subject.

You have yet to address the "why are the rest of the planets warming when man isn't there yet" question.  (discounting our hmvees on Mars which has risen a whole 2 degrees.  Unlike Earth's parts tenths of a degree)

If you blieve man is at fault here, then what are you doing personally to stop the affect 'we' are having on the planet?  Given up driving, or using electricity, or jacking the credit card up for those luxuries made in countries that haven't a care about the issue?  Boycotted any products lately?  How about spread the word to your friends to do the same?

Point here is, that all this BS yak is going to do is cost tax dollars to put not even a bandaid on the percieved problem until 'they' can come up with some other kahkamaimy scare plan.

Do your own research, the facts are out there if you set aside bias and look for them.
~Nobodee~   Get Poached!
Elite: Dangerous ~ Cmd Odeed

http://www.luxlibertas.com/

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Global warming update
« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2007, 09:34:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dadano
Interesting. Can you point me to some sources?

One of the great opposers is Prof. Nir Shaviv. Part of what I mentioned was presented to our physics faculty by him a few months ago. I do not have links to the raw data. A simple google search for "Nir Shaviv global warming" will get you plenty of links to follow.
This one is quite informative and he attacks IPCC report directly:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

As for CO2 models being off, he presented measurements of Carbon 14 during the 60s after nuclear tests. This isotope, that was produced in quantities during the explosions, was a good tracer for what happens to a large amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere. The commonly used numeric codes do not reproduce the exact results and over estimate the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. The problem is that the system is highly non-linear. CO2 affect temperatures, that affect the formation of clouds that affect the temperatures that affect the CO2 released from the oceans to the atmosphere. Everything affect everything else.

Now, even what he says you have to take with a grain of salt, especially his alternative theories. They are just that - theories, and are not well established. However, in contrast with man made global warming, they are presented as such.

Finally, I must add that I hate humvee's and SUVs, consumption culture and pollution of the enviroment in the name of economy. With most environmental issues, I'm on the green side. CO2 nonsense must be stopped so we can use the effort and funds where they are needed and not fighting this ghost "just to be on the safe side". In addition, I hate bad science.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Brenjen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Global warming update
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2007, 09:38:57 PM »
The simple answer is, the glaciers began receding thousands of years ago. (must've been all that copper smelting during the copper age huh?)

 Ice cores prove it's a cycle the earth goes through, the activity of modern man surely has effected this cycle in some way but it's impossible to say how. One group of scientists say one thing & another group of scientists say the polar opposite (pun intended).

 I'm surprised this thread got restarted since everything that could possibly be said for & against was said already; plus some things that were neither here nor there.

 Oh, I hate to put this spin on the Greenland & Iceland naming discussion, but I heard the explorer responsible for naming them did so to confuse other explorers to buy them time to settle on the more habitable land. I just saw that on a T.V. special about the Vikings & their landfall on North America, that's why it's fresh on the mind. I didn't look anything up.

Offline Dadano

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
Global warming update
« Reply #81 on: April 28, 2007, 03:38:45 AM »
I read up a bit on Prof. Nir Shaviv and his work, which was intriguing. That led me to the documentary that Lazs was speaking of which I found equally as interesting. You can find it here.

Good stuff:aok
Dano
Army of Muppets

"Furballing is a disease, and we are the cure... Oink."
-Twitchy

Offline hyena426

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
Global warming update
« Reply #82 on: April 28, 2007, 07:42:18 AM »
Quote
Oh, I hate to put this spin on the Greenland & Iceland naming discussion, but I heard the explorer responsible for naming them did so to confuse other explorers to buy them time to settle on the more habitable land.
i heard the same thing when i was in grade school 20 years ago. and took it as the truth that they were tring to trick people..im not sure about that info now. there is alot of evidence that says this is wrong. that greenland was much warmer back then. and they were forced out cause of climate change. now i know this has been beatin over and over. it is a fact that his port is full of ice all year long now. and at one time it was a clear and great place for a port. good sized settlement. that cant be reached by boat anymore.  atleast thats what they said on the history channel. {i dont allways take as the truth}

but alot of websites support the same idea. archeologist slash historian for the site that took that josh exployer guy out there, camped over night at the site. while she told him all about the place..and how long they lived there. and last time they used the church. and when they were forced out cause of climate change. they even knew the name of the last couple that was married there. i would say they had anuff info to believe in what she was stating. and i would say she proubly had alot more info than we did on the subject. but i have no idea my self. i just happend to watch the show:)

hey there bozon:) i still havent changed my flight suit on my sig!! hehe
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 07:44:36 AM by hyena426 »

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9804
Global warming update
« Reply #83 on: April 28, 2007, 09:17:18 AM »
Bozon, to quote directly from the Shaviv article you linked:

Quote
As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.


I appreciate his reasonable tone and estimated margin of error.   But by his own admission, man could be responsible for 2/3 of the observed global warming.

This does not sound like an opposition view to me.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Global warming update
« Reply #84 on: April 28, 2007, 10:43:46 AM »
"Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.


Summary
As explained above, there is no real direct evidence which can be used to incriminate anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the being the main factor responsible for the observed global warming. The reason these gases were blamed are primarily because (1) we expect them to warm and indeed the global temperature increased, and (2) there is no other mechanism which can explain the warming."


The short version for all you drama queens is......


ITS THE SUN STUPID

Lots of nice charts there for all you guys who think nothing is proven till someone makes a chart too.

lazs

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Global warming update
« Reply #85 on: April 28, 2007, 04:37:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Freak weather patterns are just typical effect of the shift in balance. Just wait for the next summer and the potential new record of the type 5 tornadoes.


Just like the potential new record of hurricanes that happened last year?

Offline 1Way>

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Global warming update
« Reply #86 on: April 28, 2007, 04:48:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
for those of you who think that the globe stays at the same temp and does not get warmer and colder over the years....

You need to ask yourself why greenland is called greenland.

lazs


Greenland is called Greenland because because Erik the Red, banished from his homeland, founded a colony there and named it Greenland, to entice his fellow Scandinavians to bypass Iceland and sail straight for Greenland...

Others believe Greenland is a derivation of Ground-Land...so named for its bays and ports on its souther tip...either way...

The ice sheet that has covered Greenland, and still does, formed over 100,000 years ago...Greenland has never been Green.

And for the record...

Man's impact on the planet in terms of climate change is so minute as to be laughable. The enviro-wackos pushing the Global Warming BS are also for the most part atheist or agnostic...and attributing something as massive as planetary cooling and warming cycles to 'man' and not a god...fits their agenda.

It is necessary and pleasing for these nut balls to exist in a homo-centric universe...where man is god...man is all.

The planet has oscillated between temperature extremes both hot and cold for Million's OF YEARS...

DONT BUY THE 'MAN CAUSED' GLOBAL WARMING CRAP...

Offline Dadano

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
Global warming update
« Reply #87 on: April 28, 2007, 04:55:53 PM »
Good stuff!

I'm going to most definitely look farther into the solar theories. Also the lack of knowledge we have in regard to aerosols and cloud formation. Super interesting stuff!
Quote
"ITS THE SUN STUPID."-Lazs2

Quote
“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”- Nietzsche
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 05:00:15 PM by Dadano »
Dano
Army of Muppets

"Furballing is a disease, and we are the cure... Oink."
-Twitchy

Offline hyena426

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
Global warming update
« Reply #88 on: April 28, 2007, 08:15:30 PM »
here is a site full of grafs{for dano} hehe just joking. but it has some interesting scientific data on this very subject

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html


according to documents the water was allmost warm anuff to survive a swim. lol i think when eric showed up. alot of the southern end of greenland was quite green and good anuff to have crops and farms.but it got so cold they couldnt even get to greenland for 80 to 100 years to see what happend to everyone.. alot of records point to a much warmer greenland then we have ever seen to this day.

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9804
Global warming update
« Reply #89 on: April 29, 2007, 08:30:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bozon
...The biggest problem for these models is how to explain the excellent inverse correlation between solar activity and global temperatures...


Bozon, can you elaborate on the INVERSE relationship between solar activity and global temperatures?    I'm pretty sure those who want to blame solar radiation for global warming are assuming a DIRECT relationship, not an inverse one.   At least, that would make sense to me.