Home | Community | Message Board


North Spore
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3806518 - 02/20/05 01:49 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I wasn't talking about you. You're one of the good ones.

Just a few people on this board who have accused me of using scare tactics.

The message I'm trying to get across is that people on both extremes of the issue tend to have false notions.

:cheers:


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3806524 - 02/20/05 01:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Hmmm. I guess I must have misinterpreted these and other images (with commentary) I discovered on the web. http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/soc_home2.php?pagetype=news3&idx=223

I shouldn't have referred to the scarring from the slide as a "rift", I guess, although it looks like a rift to me and it is definitely underwater. However, several scientists also refer to it as a "canyon" http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tsunami/news/tsunamipix.html and compare it to "the Grand Canyon". I will admit that not all canyons are rifts, however.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3808147 - 02/20/05 09:00 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year.

you're stretching

And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's oceans.

this is simply not true, but I'm sure any oceanographer will still tell you that anyway. why do you think that is?

Barnett's statements are a perfect example of the bad "science" Crichton skewers in his lecture. Anyone who has taken more than a passing interest in the scientific method (i.e. has had more than a year or two of physics, biology, or chemistry in school) will grasp immediately what Crichton is saying.

alright. lets just dispel this myth right now that Michael Crichton is some kind of scientific authority. he's not. he's infamous for mangling chaos theory in his jurassic park novels. he writes pop science and it shows.

Michael Crichton?s State of Confusion

Michael Crichton?s State of Confusion II (this one deals directly with the lecture)

But I will point out again (for the umpteenth time in this forum) hat there is not even agreement yet that the global temperature is rising to a statistically significant degree, let alone that such a rise is due to human activity.

there is scientific consensus on the issue:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

Undeniable Global Warming
________________________________________________

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States -- now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.

So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3808211 - 02/20/05 09:16 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

"The article states: "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming"

That statement alone is the exact confirmation of what Crichton is saying. There is no possible way taking measurements of ocean temperature can show there is "not a chance" that the increase was due to anything other than greenhouse gases.


I don't see how that confirms what Crichton is saying...
I think you are conflating the impossibility of eliminating ALL posibilities with the elimination of SOME facors. it's true that we'll never eliminate all possibilities as the cause of global warming, but we certainly CAN rule out certain things. for example it would be a simple matter to eliminate solar changes or volcanic effects as the cause of global warming. if there was enough of a change in the sun to cause surface temperature chages on earth, 93 million miles away, such changes would be easily detected by the satellites currently observing the sun, not only that, we should be able to detect non-seasonal temperature changes on other planets and moons. there is also a fleet of research sattelites orbiting the earth and constantly monitoring it's magnetic field, it's gravity, temperatures, composition of the atmosphere. there are a network of seismic sensors which would detect any significant volcanic activity. the thickness of the crust has also been mapped out to a precise degree.. if geologic changes in the earth itself was causing global warming, believe me, there would be overwhelming evidence of it.

What Barnett is claiming is that the oceans were warmed not through absorbing increased radiation from above or through increased radiation from below, but through surface contact with air. This alone shows his inherent prejudices have overcome his scientific judgment.

come again? how does that show his "inherent prejudice"?
can you explain?

he's just going by the evidence
as far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence pointing to increased radioactive decay in the earth's core or increased solar radiation as the cause of global warming. however, there IS plenty of evidence suggesting human activity to be the cause. why not go with the evidence? who's showing inherent prejudice here?

There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.

you're stretching again
such a huge geologic feature would be easily detected.

This latest study -- which I point out yet again has yet to be even published let alone peer-reviewed -- is not proof that human activity is causing global climate change, despite Barnett's intemperate rhetoric

Barnett has evidence, but I agree that he doesn't have proof, which is why Gazzbut didn't present it as proof.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3808765 - 02/21/05 12:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

A few things I skimmed over in pinky's posts that infidel has now brought to my attention:

Quote:

Phred said:
And -- as any oceanographer will tell you -- science knows orders of magnitude more about deep space than it knows about what takes place more than a hundred meters below the surface of the Earth's ocean




I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I think it's a very weird statement for oceanographer to make, because most oceanographers don't really study what goes on below the surface of the ocean. And I'm not really sure what you even mean by surface of the ocean. Do you mean the crust as a whole? Basaltic oceanic crust averages around 8km thick and we've been able to successfully drill down and retrieve samples from well over a kilometer (up to 10kms on continental crust). But below the crust and the lithosphere, it's a different story. Most geologists don't believe we'll ever be able to engineer a drill that could go to the mantle. So we may never be able to see it. But that doesn't mean we can't understand it. There are a few main ways geologists have accumulated evidence as to what's down there. One is through a mineralogic examination of meteorites. Seems strange yeah, but the science is pretty spot on. There's a certain brand of meteorite that I think is just called a stone. By measuring a stone's radioactivity, we can see that almost all of them were formed at around 4.54 billion y.a., the same time that the Earth was formed. Additionally, the meteorites have the exact density of the Earth's mantle. This, along with a few other pieces of evidence I can't remember right now, have given us a solid idea of what the mantle is composed of (like the crust, it's mostly just oxygen and silicon). We can even go so far as to say what minerals occur at what depths... As far as the temperature down there.. The best way to study it is through seismic tomography. By using computers to accurately measure P and S wave timing following an earthquake, we're able to create a 3-D rendering of the interior. It's kinda similar to a CAT scan. By noticing differences in velocity over distance, we can map out differences in temperature (waves move faster through colder material, slower through hot). By doing this, seismologists have been able to map most of the Earth's hot spots, subduction zones and plate forming ridges.......

Now, does all this mean that we have a better understanding of the Earth's interior than we do of deep space? I have no fucking clue, because I'm not as educated in astronomy. But I don't know if many scientists could even make the call. And it really doesn't even matter that much, because our understanding of the interior is good enough for most applications. Also, don't forget, people have been studying the stars for millenia. 60 years ago, scientists thought the Earth was solid all the way through.

Quote:

There could be a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska and no one would know it.




If there was one that size, we'd almost definitely know about it. We can accurately measure the thickness of a basaltic plate two ways. Because we know the composition of the lithosphere, we can determine the thickness because plates will become negatively buoyant and subduct when they are at a certain thickness. Or we can just measure their age (and thickness) using magnetism mapped against pole reversals (like tree rings). Both of these methods have been proven accurate over and over.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3809119 - 02/21/05 01:25 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

you're stretching

How so? The change to the sea floor at the site of the latest earthquake is apparent in the images to be found in the links I posted. My point is that it is absurd to believe that this is the only such place one Earth. I used it merely as a verifiable example of recent changes having nothing to do with man's activities (the tinfoil beanie brigade's claims that the tsunami was the result of a Zionist neoocon atom bomb explosion aside, of course) that would resonate with most readers here because we have all heard about the tsunami.

Note further that oceanic warming can occur without the exposure of actual molten rock -- without a rift deep enough to allow magma to percolate into the oceans themselves. All that is required is for the magma to rise close enough to the surface to increase the temperature of the overlying crust. We know already of several such undersea "hot spots" -- the Hawaiian Islands lie directly over one such hot spot. Can we say with certainty that for the last forty years or one hundred years or whatever this hotspot and all other currently unknown hot spots have remained constant in area and depth below the surface? No, we cannot. They may be getting bigger and warmer. They may also be getting smaller and cooler. We literally don't know enough to say that even today, and we certainly didn't know enough to say what their condition was forty or sixty or eighty years ago.

alright. lets just dispel this myth right now that Michael Crichton is some kind of scientific authority. he's not.

Sigh. Crichton's point -- and my own -- is that one need not be a PhD-level scientist in order to recognize the flaws in what is being pushed as "scientific proof" of global warming. The points made in Crichton's lecture would be every bit as valid if made by Al Franken.

Not all the claims being made are as overblown as those made by Dr. Barnett in the article posted by GazzBut. As Gijith points out, there are many, MANY scientists who present the results of their findings in ways truly representative of proper scientific inquiry only to see their findings skewed and massaged and presented to the general populace by people other than scientists in ways they never intended. Unfortunately, Barnett isn't one of those many.

there is scientific consensus on the issue:

Actually, no there isn't. Changes in global temperatures are determined through four methods:

1) Surface based thermometers. These apparently show a slight rise in temperature in most parts of the world but not in the United States.

2) Weather balloons. These show no rise in temperature

3) Satellite measurements. These show no rise in temperature

4) Extrapolations using various indirect methods of calculating what temperatures may have been close to at times when direct measurements weren't being done. These show variations in temperature in the not-so distant past which were far greater than the 0.3 to 0.5 degree Celsius rise in average temperature over the last century being claimed by many.

Finally, as I have posted here repeatedly, Professor Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph upon which so much of this debate has been based (the IPCC report uses that graph no less than five times throughout its various chapters) has been shown (through peer review by at least two separate teams of statisticians) to be an artifact of a faulty algorithm.

Last but not least is the question of solar variability. Astronomers for over fifty years have been saying the energy output from the sun varies cyclically. In the last twelve months, two separate teams have confirmed this. One is in Japan if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the other one is located. I have posted at least twice links to this work in previous posts. I'm not going to hunt those posts down at this late hour, but Gijith is aware of this work. Perhaps he has a direct link at his fingertips.

Is it possible that the human penchant for burning stuff to produce energy (thus increasing CO2 released into the atmosphere) increases the greenhouse effect to the point where global temperatures rise? Yes, it is possible. Is it an established fact that it has done so? No, it isn't an established fact.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809156 - 02/21/05 01:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Here's a link to just one of the many articles discussing Mann's broken "hockey stick" graph. It does mention the work of the people to whom I referred earlier and to whose analyses I have linked in the past although it doesn't provide links to their work --

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314

Just a few excerpts from the article to give you a taste (I suggest you read the whole thing) --

Quote:

Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification--sans the U.S., Australia and China--of the Kyoto Protocol.

Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.

This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Gijith]
    #3809182 - 02/21/05 01:44 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Gijith, with all due respect, you are missing my point. I perhaps should have made myself more clear so I will accept responsibility for that.

Do we know the exact thickness of every square mile (or even of every thousand square mile "pixel") of the Earth's crust under the oceans? More to the point, do we know what that thickness was even forty years ago, let alone a century ago? Do we know where it is increasing and where it is decreasing? More to the point, do we know where it was increasing and where it was decreasing forty years ago?

We know that the crust does vary in thickness in some locations over time -- vulcanism is proof of that.

Barnett's claim is that the warming of the oceans his group claims to have observed cannot be caused by anything other than an increase in atmospheric temperature, and that the increase in atmospheric temperature is caused by increased concentration of greenhouse gases through human activity. That's two errors in one conclusion.




Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809293 - 02/21/05 02:15 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

No, I follow. I'm just being a picky prick.

As far as some of the more general things you've touched on::

1) Changes in the Earth's obliquity and/or precession of orbit: This is the only area where I'm really 99.999% comfortable relying on the models. This stuff is like clockwork. You can map the cycles out as a perfect sine curves. They definitely account for most of the warming occured since the last glacial peak.

2) Some sort of increased heating from below the Earth: This would really be dependent on plate tectonics. Or plate tectonics would be dependent on it. There's definitely some validity to it. It's listed as one of the accepted reasons for climate change. The problem is that the whole system moves so damn slow, the climate arcs would take place over millions of years. Differences in plate locations and/or internal proccesses really can't vouch for what's happened over the past 19,000 years. To the interior of the Earth, 19,000 years is the blink of an eye.

3) Varience in solar radiation (maybe corrolated to sunspot cycles): Definitely a possibility. There's not a whole lot known about this yet, except that the variations in radiation can be measured pretty damn accurately and that they tend to flux every few decades. So there should be good studies on this relatively soon.

4) CO2: The other big possibility. Probably also the hardest to pin down. We know that temp has risen and continues to rise. We know that CO2 levels have risen and continue to rise. We know that, in a controlled experiment, more CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect... That's about it all we can say for sure at the moment. I was talking to prof a few weeks ago about how she wants to try and study ancient periods when there was much more CO2 trapped in the atmosphere than there is today. There have been several periods like this over the past billion years. She wants to study the biology of fossils from those periods to see just how much natural environments were affected. I'm sure there are already people working on this (she's probably just jumping on the bandwagon). But their research might give us a clue what we're in store for if this keeps up.


PS: Is every square mile mapped with thickness? No, but I'm sure some very unfortunate assemblage of grad students is working on it somewhere. Every square 1000 miles is definitely mapped. I'd safely assume most of the Earth's ocean floor thickness has been measured at 100 sq kilometers. And if there was a feature that was going to affect the overall temperature of the oceans, it would be much bigger. Yes we know what these thicknesses were 40 years ago. There was probably about 2 meters of difference in most places. Yes, we know what these thicknesses were 100 years ago. There was probably a little under 5 meters of difference in most places. And yes we definitely know where it was increasing or decreasing. If I put you in contact with an experienced geophysicist, he could tell you where the crust below your feet was 300,000,000 years ago. Within 100kms. This isn't like global warming. It's extremely accurate.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Edited by Gijith (02/21/05 03:05 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809390 - 02/21/05 03:00 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

How so?

you said:
Furthermore, it is not even proof that the warming of the oceans is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature. It could be discovered that this increase in temperature is due to some relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust on the ocean floor. Surely you caught the article a week or so ago about the enormous rift in the sea floor at the site of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in late December of last year. The earth's crust is not static.

you're saying here that the warming of the oceans might be caused by relatively new hot spots in the earth's crust like the rift in the seafloor at the site of the earthquake. correct? did you forget that that rift was accompanied by a magnitute 9 earthquake? I don't think such a geologic event would go unnoticed. if it's a relatively new hot spot, responsible for the current observed warming of oceanic temperatures, it would be a current feature, and it would surely have been detected. but I don't even understand why we're discussing ocean rifts here. is there any evidence at all that they're connected to global warming? it seems like you're just throwing it out there to cast doubt, saying "see, it could be caused by rifts on the seafloor, or increased solar radiation! so we can't know for certain humans are causing global warming". heck. global warming could be caused by cosmic rays dissipating in the atmosphere. it could be caused by aliens. why not throw in more possibilities for which there is no evidence?

as I said, I'm not 100% convinced yet that humans are causing global warming, but I do know that the evidence is increasing pointing to that. if there is evidence pointing to any other cause, like increased solar radiation, rifts on the ocean floor, increased radioactive decay in the earth's core, or a thin spot in the Earth's crust smack dab in the the middle of the Pacific Ocean the size of Alaska, please let me know.

Note further that oceanic warming can occur without the exposure of actual molten rock -- without a rift deep enough to allow magma to percolate into the oceans themselves. All that is required is for the magma to rise close enough to the surface to increase the temperature of the overlying crust. We know already of several such undersea "hot spots" -- the Hawaiian Islands lie directly over one such hot spot.

so what? there is natural subsurface warming of the oceans. magma is constantly heating the ocean floor, hydrothermal vents also spew superheated water into the oceans. I would guess that theres a fairly constant output of heat from the interior of the earth into the ocean, and that it has reached natural equilibrium over the billions of years that its been happening. if there was a geologic event that actually dramatically increased the output of heat into the oceans (enough to account for rising surface temps) we would certainly know about it.

Sigh. Crichton's point -- and my own -- is that one need not be a PhD-level scientist in order to recognize the flaws in what is being pushed as "scientific proof" of global warming. The points made in Crichton's lecture would be every bit as valid if made by Al Franken.

but the thing is - his points are not valid... did you read anything I wrote, or those links I provided? they do a pretty thorough job of debunking Crichton point by point. would you care to respond to any of those points?

here's some more:
Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up
Scientists say Crichton distorted their research
Science and pseudoscience

I seriously recommend you re-read crichton's lecture and closely examine the arguments he presents and reasoning he uses, and this time read it with a critical mind.

Last but not least is the question of solar variability. Astronomers for over fifty years have been saying the energy output from the sun varies cyclically. In the last twelve months, two separate teams have confirmed this. One is in Japan if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the other one is located. I have posted at least twice links to this work in previous posts.

can you post those links? I'm really interested. are they referring to the 11 year solar cycle? or the long term heating of the sun? or is there some newly discovered long-period solar cycle? I'd like to see this research.

one thing to keep in mind: just because increased solar activity (or thermal vents, or aliens or whatever) is heating the earth DOES NOT mean that human activity is having no effect on it either. it's not one or the other. even if human activity plays just a small part in global warming, we should try to minimize the harm.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Phred]
    #3809489 - 02/21/05 03:29 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

More to the point, do we know what that thickness was even forty years ago, let alone a century ago? Do we know where it is increasing and where it is decreasing? More to the point, do we know where it was increasing and where it was decreasing forty years ago?

perhaps Gijith can answer this better, but I doubt that the thickness of the crust can change that fast, especially without being detected.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLeastResistance
Camp Pink Onion
Male

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3809569 - 02/21/05 03:56 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I agree with Bear, global warming is a myth

1. The Great "Global Warming" Myth

The greenhouse effect is a myth, and there have been extensive and complete, careful measurements which show absolutely NO increase in the average global temperature. The ones usually used in promoting this concept are based on incomplete sampling. Global warming does not exist. In fact there are so many buffers in the atmosphere that it can't happen, even if the CO2 increased hundreds of times over.

First of all, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is only a very tiny amount, about 300 parts per million. This CO2 stays in the air in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Since CO2 has a very steep curve of solubility in water, the amount in the air is critically dependent upon the sea surface temperatures (cold rain falling is an excellent CO2 scrubber). World CO2 measurements have traditionally been based on the levels tested in the air at Mona Kea Observatory in Hawaii. The charts of the levels fluctuate seasonally, rising in the summer and falling in the winter. If the levels are compared to the actual sea surface temperature measurements taken at Hilo, which is at the base of Mona Kea, the seasonal variations are seen to track exactly with the temperature. Even the gradual increase over time is duplicated in the temperature reading, as the average temperature at Hilo has been rising in exact lock step with the rise in the Mona Kea CO2 levels. (The charts of these measurement are easily available, making this a trivial exercise if you wish to verify my statements).

Burning fossil fuels is probably one of the most important aids to the life cycle on this oxygen-rich, carbon-poor planet that man can do. Most of the primeval carbon is locked away in the oil and coal deposits formed over the ages by cell death of the phytoplankton (diatoms), which created the oxygen-rich environment by decarboxylating the CO2 in the primitive atmosphere. The limits placed on CO2 are unreasonable and impede the creation of wealth which benefits everyone, and are harmful to the plant life at the same time.


2. The Great "Hole in the Ozone" Myth.

Likewise another myth, that of "ozone damage" was a scam developed by DuPont in a push to outlaw Freon. The patent has run out, and since it is a totally stable compound, is the most ideal refrigerant known, AND is very cheap to manufacture, they needed to ban it so that they could sell a (patented) replacement HFC, which is nowhere near as good a refrigerant, called (get this!): Soma.

There is absolutely no verifiable data that the "destruction" reactions between chlorine and ozone actually occur anywhere other than in apparatus and under laboratory conditions.

There is no verifiable data that there is any significant portion of the atmosphere's chlorine is the result of breakdown of CFC's (Freon is the principal member of this class of compounds). CFC's are so stable that they have been used in very successful fire-extinguishing systems.

Another factor is that there is no verifiable evidence that CFC's, which are very dense, heavy gases have any way to make it out of the troposphere into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Of course there is no mechanism known to science which would transport these dense compounds to the upper levels of the stratosphere (stratos means layered, there is no convective mixing in this part of the atmosphere, because the temperature rises with increased height). It is in the uppermost layers of the stratosphere where the energy from the sun in the form of very short wave UV and electrons in the solar wind create the ozone we need to protect us at the surface.

The "hole in the ozone" scam was attacked by a large group of prominent scientists in the so-called Heidelberg paper, with volcanologists as prominent signatories. Volcanos are the single highest source of atmospheric chlorine, measured in the tens of millions of metric tonnes/year. Man's total OUTPUT of Freon never exceeded a hundred thousand pounds of equivalent chlorine, and of course most of that never gets into the atmosphere, never mind that it is one of the most stable organic chemicals known.


3. The Great "Your Car Causes Smog" Myth

The last of the great modern environmental myths is that "cars cause smog". This has an extreme impact on all of us in that the cost of manufacturing cars has risen to the point that many cars cost more than the cost of a home.

Ozone in the lower atmosphere is the cause of smog. This ozone is formed primarily by the decay of tritium (by beta particle emission= high velocity electrons) in the atmosphere, and by lightning and electrical discharges such as corona on electrical high-tension transmission lines. This energetic electron is captured by an ordinary oxygen molecule (O2), which cannot exist as a stable molecule with an extra electron, and so splits into two very reactive oxygen atoms ("nascent" oxygen). These two reactive oxygen atoms each combines instantaeously with another normal molecule of oxygen to form two new molecules of ozone (O3). The only other source of ozone is very short wave UV, and the amount we receive from the sun doesn't penetrate to sea level (thanks to the ozone in the upper stratosphere). Those old-fashioned toilet seat sterilizers that you occasionally run across in public restrooms produce a detectable amount of ozone, as you may remember if you ever ran across one. They aren't as common nowadays as they once were.

In real terms the smog-induction is primarily and almost entirely dependent upon the presence of tritium which is produced in large quantity by nuclear activity. Almost all reactors use either heavy water- deuterium oxide (which produces the most tritium, by capture of a single neutron), or ordinary water (requires the capture of 2 neutrons, first to make deuterium, then to produce tritium from the deuterium) to enclose and absorb the neutrons escaping from the reactor. Also the storage of radioactive waste is done in pools of water. In addition to all this, the military makes tritium on purpose to use in "hydrogen" fusion bombs. All this tritium is chemically the same as hydrogen and escapes into the atmosphere quite easily. Usually the beta particle is of no concern, since it doesn't cause the sort of health damage that alpha particles, gamma rays and neutrons cause. Most of the concern with nuclear radiation is connected with gamma rays and neutrons.

There is absolutely NO way that ozone can be generated by any chemical or long-wave (visible) light-mediated reaction, and certainly not by any of the purported means the smog-control advocates present. Even the commercial generation of ozone for industrial purposes (due to its powerful oxidizing properties), must be done by bombarding oxygen with high-speed electrons.

Of course the explosion of bombs, even underground ones, produces the most tritium, (and therefore ozone) and does so all at once. The most severe smog event in history occurred immediately after the only nuclear explosion ever to take place in the water, just after WW II. Almost every one has seen the aerial photographs of all the war ships in the harbour and the monstrous column of water and it's huge mushroom cloud. Almost immediately afterwards the burning of diesel fuel in "smudge pots" in the California orange groves was outlawed. The smoke was one of the most economical ways to prevent frost in the winters, and the smoke always dissipated by a few hours after sunrise. Until, that is, the water drop bomb test. I can verify this personally, as I lived within a few blocks of the orange groves in central Los Angeles during WW II (Park LaBrea).

To this day the intensity of a smog event is measured by the amount of ozone present in the air at the surface. It is known as the "Ozone Number"

For the convenience of distracting people from the real cause of smog by the nuclear industry (and the military), we now have to pay almost as much for a new car as for a house. And you can't live in a car - not to mention that, unlike a piece of real estate, it is a very poor investment.

In reality ALL of man's hydrocarbon emissions total only about 4% of the total that is found in the air, most of which comes from plantlife, with some from oil seeps and volcanism. To burden us with a technology which in reality benefits slightly only those in cities (where there are few plants, so most hydrocarbons come from human activities) and greatly those in the nuclear industry (and people are placed in many dangers by this very dangerous enterprise), is a massive act of folly.


--------------------
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3809899 - 02/21/05 09:01 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinerandymott
Stranger
Registered: 03/01/05
Posts: 1
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: GazzBut]
    #3851093 - 03/01/05 10:38 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Barnett's study is being discussed off of a press release. It has not been peer-reviewed. We do not know what "tweaking" was done to get ocean changfes to match "man-made" emissions. We do know that most 20th Century land-based temperature changes occurred before 1940 - not very helpful to the theory. We also know that in Science Magazine in 2001, Barnett published data that showed a cooling trend in the deep ocean between 1976 and 1985.

What this study represents in a report that has not been peer-reviewed that tries to do a statistical correlation between ocean temperatures and greenhouse gas levels. This has been done for millions of years in other years and no correlation exist: not even when GHG levels were twnty-times higher than today.

Don't hold your breath on this one. It will collpase when other folks get access to the computer database and re-run the numbers and assumptions.

Randy Mott
President, Ekotechnology Sp. z o.o.
[air pollution control equipment firm]
Warsaw, Poland


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: randymott]
    #3851099 - 03/01/05 10:41 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Randymott... nice to hear the voice of reason. Welcome to the site and I hope you stick around and continue to post. Very well spoken!


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Silversoul]
    #3851531 - 03/01/05 12:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I think the big question with global warming is: Do we wait for definitive proof before taking preventative measures?






I think if people stop polluting and those that do pollute get a realistic punishment for it the world will be fine. Trying to keep the Earth clean and global warming don't have to be always on the same sentence. I'm all for clean water, air, etc., but trying to scare everyone (not you in specific) by telling them that they will burn up as a result of global warming if they don't do this or that detracts from what the original message is. Stop polluting and look for cleaner alternatives (which the US is doing as we speak). I believe it will get cleaner, while I don't like their methods (global warming theorists), I do respect their goal.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3851559 - 03/01/05 01:06 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

> while I don't like their methods (global warming theorists), I do respect their goal.

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy? I applaud efforts to clean the world and reduce pollution, but these have not been proven to have anything to do with global warming. The 'global warming theorists' remind me of the 'anti-drug' propaganda machines... reality doesn't matter as long as they get people to believe their fantasies... because if enough people believe something, then obviously it must be true and correct. Sorry, I have no respect for this what-so-ever.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3851680 - 03/01/05 01:34 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy?




Admittedly, there is not sufficient data yet to test all the theories related to man made global warming but there is much evidence which points to such a conclusion. The debate will be settled at some point. To say it is based entirely on fantsay is rather naive and reactionary.

Almost amusing as earlier in the thread when you compared your guess that global warming will turn out to be not affected by man with the guess of the theorists and their computer models as if these two guesses were somehow of equal value! That one did make me chuckle for a while!!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Seuss]
    #3851978 - 03/01/05 02:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

You respect a goal which is based entirely on fanatasy?




no, their goal of a cleaner Earth. That's as far as our (mine and theirs) similarities go.

Quote:

applaud efforts to clean the world and reduce pollution, but these have not been proven to have anything to do with global warming.




and that's why I said what I said in my previous post. Both don't have to be part of the discussion. Global warming is nothing more than a scare tactic, it's synonyms with the search for WMD's.

Quote:

eality doesn't matter as long as they get people to believe their fantasies... because if enough people believe something, then obviously it must be true and correct. Sorry, I have no respect for this what-so-ever.




I can't believe that you implied this from my posts. I've been in this argument on this site more then I can remember. Studies show that there was just the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back in the 1300 and 1400's as we have today, I've argued with people to explain this to me and have yet to have a decent answer that makes sense. In my opinion and from scientists I have read and listened to, global warming is a natural occurrence. This would explain the numerous ice ages that we have had.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Edited by Innvertigo (03/01/05 02:52 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Global Warming: The Final Proof? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3852085 - 03/01/05 02:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/

I suggest you overview this site, and if your interested invest in his books. He applies through Physics that it is in know way possible to heat up the Earth to the degree that is warming up, as much as the energy is dissapated naturally, and instead suggests that it is due to solar weather among other things that is the primary cause of our global warming.

As the Earth has been warming up at a steady rate and is beggining to "normalize", as is told by looking at the global conditions of our past, from looking at natural evidence (well before mand was an industrialized society).

Also, he suggest that the only reason we should stop using "fossil feuls" as it were as they pollute our environment. And further he suggests Napantha (sp?) and the burning fires from heaven are really oils being deposited by a passing comet. Sounds far fetched, but check it out, makes a hell of a lot more sense then most of the scientifice theories out their including that comets are "dirty snowballs" which one would believe that they are in fact are, till they realize that a comet passing that near the sun would inevitably burn it up. Instead he proposes an electrical nature of the sun, and that the comet nucleus is really a solid core, which makes the coma have a sunward spike in the opposite direction of the sun (as the sun is discharing energy, and forming an electrical discharge against the comet).

Additionally, he provides ways to circumvent such occurences of pollution (as global warming isn't going to be stopped by just reducing emissions, nor stopping emissions entirely). Think of the Sun as a capacitor in way of it producing energy, when fusion occurs, energy is released, yet that isn't really accounted for in our current understanding (i.e. textbook understanding) of our solar system, where only the energy released by the sun in form of heat is tauted to be the dominant influence of our sun.

getting distracted, and off on a Tangent.

/end rant.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/01/05 03:12 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,148 37 07/18/03 08:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 12,613 119 02/27/04 03:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 9,875 112 08/31/04 09:48 PM
by Gijith
* Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming
( 1 2 3 4 all )
GazzBut 4,791 67 10/12/04 01:56 PM
by Innvertigo
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,311 86 06/10/03 06:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,302 75 05/04/03 10:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global Warming May Have More Current Affects than Previously Thought Ravus 630 4 01/16/05 11:53 AM
by greensnake316
* Awareness of Global warming dangers is growing (in France at least)
( 1 2 all )
exclusive58 3,186 24 02/02/05 09:17 AM
by newuser1492

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,829 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.133 seconds spending 0.029 seconds on 27 queries and 0.034 seconds on Sphinx.