Global warming FREEZE......

[twodko]

I have held suspect whale turdage for some time now.

Methane soluble sea water = ozone layer penetration = increased solar radiation =

an extinction level population of ultra liberals!

[Mytur Binsdirti]

rising sea levels are real    

 where I live there are rock shelves exposed at low tide  ,when I was a kid  you used to be able to walk out on them in shoes on a totally dry surface  once the sun had dried it out . now that same rock shelf is under water up to your knees ALL the time    

Good lord man; do you actually believe that the sea level has risen 2 feet in the past 20-30 years?

This is what NOAA (whose members are hardly global warming sceptics) has to say about the rate of increase....

"Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.".


And the there's this............


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/30/new-research-quantifies-sea-level-rise


Whatever train of thought you want to believe, the fact is that the amount of ocean rise is very, very small.

[XH29N0G]

I am not intending to throw gas on a fire, but there are a few points in this discussion that (I think) are important to comment on.  There are some successes that are being held up as failures.  

Several times in this thread, ozone has come up like it was a failure.  We need to be careful about bringing this up as an example because it has been a success.  Take a look at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/the-montreal-protocol-a-little-treaty-that-could.html?_r=0  

Acid rain is another.  Take a look at some of the maps plotting sulfate and nitrate deposition in 1990 compared to today at:  http://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=8ABC14B4-1&offset=2&toc=show   Both of these had huge economic impacts and possible societal pushback.  

From my standpoint I am glad that these things (and also the smog issue in cities because I had health issues) happened.  As far as the climate change discussion is concerned, I bet we debate this until (or if there is a time when) it costs the people who run the most powerful countries a lot more money in the short term to deal with it than it would to let it go.

[500Jon]

Global warming not much use to you guys in the US of A but,,,,

Just think what its doing for Russia, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, North Pole etc, etc, etc!
All that lovely mineral rich land waiting to be plundered???

The only thing stopping the new land rush, polar bears and greenies!!!

[draftingmonkey]

The fact that I think we can all agree on is that there is global climate change and has been since the earth was formed.  The debate comes in on how little or how great of an effect what mankind does contributes to the change.  The level of the Great Lakes has changed, how much based on weather changes and how much is caused by the rising of the lake floor since the melting of the glacial ice sheets is yet an unknown. How much is sea level change caused by changing levels of water or changing elevations of the tectonic plates, again an unknown.
Awhile back, and I can't remember which cable network it was maybe Discovery or Weather Channel, a program showing via satellite imagery that the oxygen produced by the South American rainforests during the day was consumed by same forests at night, thus it was actually a closed system in regards to oxygen used. The bulk of what we breathe is produced by plant life in the oceans.
The 3 year or so drought in California, which has many concerned here, is not that long when you consider that via the fossil records scientists has found that we have had droughts lasting 100 years or more.
Not to long ago, last few weeks, one of the founders of the Weather Channel actually came out against the whole manmade climate change debate.
I have a cousin who is in grad school studying climatology who wanted to do a study on climate change for his thesis and found that unless you are trying to prove that climate change is manmade you can forget about getting any grant money.  Something to think about when the scientists getting money to study climate change seem to be the ones that support manmade climate change.
At the end of the day whether climate change is totally caused by mankind, helped along by mankind or not effected by mankind I think we still have a long way to go before we know for sure.
As for myself I'm not sure who I want to believe, but I will continue to pick up my trash, keep my vehicles tuned up to run as efficiently as they can, use a broom and not a power blower, replace light bulbs with more efficient ones and continue to do what I can to at least lessen my impact on the planet and that is something we can all do.

[skip68]

    
Well said.   That pretty much said it all.   

[XH29N0G]

What I was told by someone who studies climate change was that it had gotten extremely difficult to get funding for that research (especially if it touched on anything being caused by humans).  He isn't a crazy humans did this and that type either.

[Chad L. Magee]

Of course we have an effect.   I personally don't believe it's as big as some scientist claims.   How many times have the scientists been wrong?  Several.   How many times have top scientists disagreed?  Several.  A scientist is only as good as the information available.   Can they tell me exactly what the temperature was on this day in my region 200 years ago? How about average temperature this month 200 years ago?   How about average for the whole year 200 years ago?   I highly doubt it with 100% accuracy.   I'm not trying to fight with anyone as everyone is entitled to their opinions.   We are not cattle.   We have the ability to question and should question any of mans claims.   Whether that man be a scientist or just a charger guy with an opinion.   

    It is good to question things in life, as that is part of the scientific method of problem solving (cognitive thinking process) that scientists often employ during different stages of their research.  But, one must then try to sort thru the data to see if the hypothesis (educated guess) is correct or not on what you questioned.  Even scientists can be proven wrong sometimes on what they thought was correct on a subject.  In that case, scientists have to be adaptive to what the data says.  The true data is impartial, it does not lie...

    Do scientists argue sometimes?  Yes.  It can even be very trivial stuff that most people will never even think that they argue over (like naming a new series of compounds that no one else will ever consider developing for example).  They are human just like you and are open to interpretations of the data that they have on hand about a subject that they are doing research on.  Can they be influenced by bad data in their opinions on what is causing something that they see in the data?  Yes, this can happen.  Scientists have safeguards in place to verify data multiple times before it gets released in a major publication.  This is not always true of lower publications though.  If it happens to get published in the scientific literature, there are those who check the data time and again to make sure that it is valid.  (They love nothing better than to prove someone wrong on their own research data.)  If it is not correct, the research paper gets pulled and the author gets discredited for the work.  Get too many of those papers pulled (redacted) that way and your chances of ever getting funded for your research become close to zero (as well as job prospects).  This is one reason why scientists have to be careful on what they publish, as it can backfire if they are wrong.  I can give you an real world example from history of how being wrong in a paper can really cost you as a scientist:

   Back in 1951, a group of chemists published an article on a new compound containing iron and carbon bonds with the formula of FeC10H10, which is now known as ferrocene.  However, they messed up the chemical structure of the compound in their paper.  They had it bonded completely wrong.  Another group of chemists published a paper soon afterword that had the correct structure of the compound, with the iron center sandwiched between two cyclopentyl rings, making it the first metallocene compound.  It was later proven with NMR data that the sandwich structure exists.  Can you guess who ended up with the Noble prize on that one?  (It was not the first group, even though they made the compound first.)  The point is that scientists have to be literally perfect in their interpretations of what they know or they suffer because of it (like the case above).  It is their own reputation and career on the line every time they publish.  The same level of hierarchy simply cannot be said of everyone else when they publish an opinion on something, be it on the internet, in the paper or on TV...

[el dub]

and although global warming is  controversial I think the scientists are on the same page.

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.  No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions. and of course the extractive positions are the miners of the earth. so the would naturally disagree.

so you take a pristine earth back in the day, add 7 billion humans, and their infrastructure, and common sense tells me it is very possible that we are the cause of a change

[Mytur Binsdirti]

and although global warming is  controversial I think the scientists are on the same page.

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.  No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions. and of course the extractive positions are the miners of the earth. so the would naturally disagree.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

[polywideblock]

rising sea levels are real    

 where I live there are rock shelves exposed at low tide  ,when I was a kid  you used to be able to walk out on them in shoes on a totally dry surface  once the sun had dried it out . now that same rock shelf is under water up to your knees ALL the time    

Good lord man; do you actually believe that the sea level has risen 2 feet in the past 20-30 years?

This is what NOAA (whose members are hardly global warming sceptics) has to say about the rate of increase....

"Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.".


And the there's this............


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/30/new-research-quantifies-sea-level-rise


Whatever train of thought you want to believe, the fact is that the amount of ocean rise is very, very small.

I knows what I knows   

     that same rock shelf is now underwater to your knees    

   was and always will be ( at least until I have to swim ) one of my favourite  fishing spots

       my father used to take me there fishing  when I was "knee high to a grasshopper "  and it was dry at low tide   

[XH29N0G]

Polywide,  It is an interesting observation that you make. 

Assuming it is correct, one would want to figure out why.  Where I am, the coast is sinking at a rate that is fast enough for people to sense it in their lifetimes.  Where I am it is like a see saw, with the land rising because the ice sheets melted over Canada and they are on their way up.  This probably does not apply in Australia. 

I have also seen places where withdrawing groundwater look at the picture that is often shown in geology textbooks to illustrate how farming can pull water out and cause subsidence in the Central Valley of California.  http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/images/subsidencePole.jpg  (It looks to me like the telephone pole muth have been really short in 1925  )  It is just for illustration purposes, but that is the amount they apparently had.  And, you I do not think you can pump water back into compacted rock and reinflate it.  I do not know if this would apply where you are.  Where is that?

I also see that El Nino can change sea level from one side to the other of the pacific, but do not know by how much.  My guess is not that much or we all would know about it. 

Otherwise, I think it is too small to be general global sea level rise (due to added water or thermal expansion of the water).

Regarding cooling - that will be cool if it happens, but I am not sure it shifts responsibility for the hockey stick, or us fortunately missing the next ice age, away from us.  Time will tell.  I am sure scientists will duke it out - fisti cuffs style.

[polywideblock]

should also add that

a: I'm 5'9"  so my knee high might be mid calf on you lanky yanks   

b: we had  the most devastating earthquake in Australia's history in 1989         

[XH29N0G]

Do you think the quake and the sea level change are linked? 

[ws23rt]

The fact that I think we can all agree on is that there is global climate change and has been since the earth was formed.  The debate comes in on how little or how great of an effect what mankind does contributes to the change.  The level of the Great Lakes has changed, how much based on weather changes and how much is caused by the rising of the lake floor since the melting of the glacial ice sheets is yet an unknown. How much is sea level change caused by changing levels of water or changing elevations of the tectonic plates, again an unknown.
Awhile back, and I can't remember which cable network it was maybe Discovery or Weather Channel, a program showing via satellite imagery that the oxygen produced by the South American rainforests during the day was consumed by same forests at night, thus it was actually a closed system in regards to oxygen used. The bulk of what we breathe is produced by plant life in the oceans.
The 3 year or so drought in California, which has many concerned here, is not that long when you consider that via the fossil records scientists has found that we have had droughts lasting 100 years or more.
Not to long ago, last few weeks, one of the founders of the Weather Channel actually came out against the whole manmade climate change debate.
I have a cousin who is in grad school studying climatology who wanted to do a study on climate change for his thesis and found that unless you are trying to prove that climate change is manmade you can forget about getting any grant money.  Something to think about when the scientists getting money to study climate change seem to be the ones that support manmade climate change.
At the end of the day whether climate change is totally caused by mankind, helped along by mankind or not effected by mankind I think we still have a long way to go before we know for sure.
As for myself I'm not sure who I want to believe, but I will continue to pick up my trash, keep my vehicles tuned up to run as efficiently as they can, use a broom and not a power blower, replace light bulbs with more efficient ones and continue to do what I can to at least lessen my impact on the planet and that is something we can all do.

Very thoughtful, rational, and practical thinking.
I believe it's a responsibility for those that do research and publish their findings that they don't stop with what they find. They make assertions that are viewed and relied upon by many and have an ethical responsibility to keep an open mind to new information.
The research community (and everyone that relies on them for information) is hurt if it becomes common to publish outdated information and stick by it. We have been learning new things for a long time and it has always been hard to let go of firm beliefs from the past.

I see a big obstacle for us regular folks to over come is perspective when it comes to a topic like this.  When one uses terms like billions of tons and billions of people in close context (for example) it gives in my opinion a false sense of proportion for the common reader.

For most the eyes glaze over when talking about billions and above. They are all just very large numbers and feel kinda the same. Their are many ways to get a handle on the size of things and big numbers.  Example---how long is a billion seconds?----It's roughly 30 years. --So when the word trillion comes up (as it does when talking about money today) what that amounts to is 30,000 years worth of seconds.

It's easy to find proper perspective if one looks for it but most don't and it doesn't seem to be an important part of many scientific observations that are translated for us.

The big question I see is --just how delicate is the balance of our climate?  And are we big enough and dirty enough to tip a slide to change one way or the other? 

I personally am convinced of one thing.  (but I could be proven to be wrong)  --The sun does cause global warming--and I like it.

[ws23rt]

Along the lines of sea level elevation.--As I recall (and am to lazy to google it) The level of the pacific is different than the gulf of mexico. thirty feet or so from memory.??   So if the panama canal were to be an open Chanel it would flow like a river.  Thirty feet???

[polywideblock]

Do you think the quake and the sea level change are linked? 

"they" keep telling us its not   

Along the lines of sea level elevation.--As I recall (and am to lazy to google it) The level of the pacific is different than the gulf of mexico. thirty feet or so from memory.??   So if the panama canal were to be an open Chanel it would flow like a river.  Thirty feet???

thirty  feet, sh*t half of Australia would be under water 

[XH29N0G]

Polywide,  Looking up subsidence for Newcastle, and the quake, it looks like there may be  a mining connection to both.  I suspect you are right on with the local effects.  It also was not something I thought of.  

Now the trick is figuring out how to get back over to your side of the world.

[ws23rt]

Ok--I did a google look at sea levels.
What I came up with is around 8 inches difference at panama.    
I did recall a number from way back and it stuck with me for many years.
Hmm a good example of what we hear and how it can stick with us. 

[Paul G]

For those who have been around a while, I remember when reports came out that coffee was bad for you, then not so bad, it may have positive benefits, sugar is bad, then not so bad, the alternative sweeteners may be worse, butter was bad for you, margarine was better, then maybe margarine is not so good either..... on and on. A person will become accustomed to not believing the so called experts who pen the reports. Who among us remembers the "coming ice age" threats from the past? Were they right or wrong. Now we have global warming. Are they right or wrong? Who can you believe any more?

In my work I must have hard and fast facts to do my work without guessing at solutions. Sometimes what I think is correct information may not hold true to be correct in the long run. I must adjust and continue with my problem solving. I sometimes think the "experts" are no more reliable with there "facts" than I am with mine.

[Chad L. Magee]

One thing to consider when it comes to sea levels is that the earth's surface is not a truly stationary place, even if it seems like it is to people that live on it in relatively calm areas.  Some parts of it are constantly being elevated, some parts are constantly being pulled down, all due to the interaction of the earth's tectonic plates (and the liquid mantle they float upon).  Other times, earthquakes (both large and small) can change elevations/positions of the surface.  Pushing part of a land mass into the water can affect other areas simply by the volume of water displaced by the land mass.  Why is that important to consider?  Well, if you measure the rise/fall of the sea levels at different points and do not take in account those effects over time, your data can be flawed from the start, which is not a good thing.  Just something to ponder over.... 

[Patronus]

 I believe the Sun and its cycles are the single factor for the Earth and its changing patterns. I believe our research on the other planets reveals violent changes in their weather patterns as well. If momma ain't happy - ain't no one happy. I also believe there is a finite level of resources on this planet. And I would like it to be here for your children (as I have none) so I will continue to recycle as much as possible because to do otherwise is simply stupid.

[Chad L. Magee]

For those who have been around a while, I remember when reports came out that coffee was bad for you, then not so bad, it may have positive benefits, sugar is bad, then not so bad, the alternative sweeteners may be worse, butter was bad for you, margarine was better, then maybe margarine is not so good either..... on and on. A person will become accustomed to not believing the so called experts who pen the reports. Who among us remembers the "coming ice age" threats from the past? Were they right or wrong. Now we have global warming. Are they right or wrong? Who can you believe any more?

In my work I must have hard and fast facts to do my work without guessing at solutions. Sometimes what I think is correct information may not hold true to be correct in the long run. I must adjust and continue with my problem solving. I sometimes think the "experts" are no more reliable with there "facts" than I am with mine.

   The problem is that in science, one can report accurate data based upon current testing techniques at the time and then find it inaccurate later on because a more accurate method of testing might have been developed.  It happens more than you think.  Not everyone can afford to buy the newest instrumentation for testing, so you have to report based upon what you have used to formulate the data.  That is why you are required to list the type of instrumentation that you use in the article, so that it can be verified by an outside source for accuracy.  I wish it was better, but that is what we have to work with.  After all, we are all human, at least at this stage...

    Biochemical aspects of certain chemicals can be tricky to ascertain with complete uncertainty because many of them involve very complicated processes within the body, some of which we might not know everything about.  Case in point:  Some specific poisons can kill a person if they interfere with the wrong part of a biological system, yet be used for medicinal purposes if introduced such that it affects only a different part of the system.  Botulinum toxin (Botox, a protein neurotoxin) is a very toxic poison that can shut down your nervous system if ingested/inhaled, yet can be used to "tighten" nerve endings in skin if applied via syringe to certain areas very, very carefully.  The difference is in the amount used and area affected.  (It only takes about 0.0000001 to 0.00000001 grams of this toxin to send you to your grave if applied wrong.)  How this would affect other parts inside your body (like brain nerve endings) would be hard to test for without live human subjects (volunteers) willing to try it out for better or worse.  I would have no interest in volunteering (or doing the testing) for that ever...    

[skip68]

Ok I'll say it.   Chad, you are definitely smarter than a 5th grader.      
I actually enjoy reading your post.  Very rational thought process.   One can almost mistake you for a college professor.    Almost.......

[XH29N0G]

It is extremely frustrating that medical knowledge and scientific knowledge change with time.  This is unfortunately a consequence of the underlying process of following evidence, formulating hypotheses, and testing them.  In the end, it is the probability that something will be valid that decides.  Those who topple a paradigm get recognized.  This process is also why I don't think a scientific conspiracy would last that long.  People can be wrong, and strength of personality and ability to argue can enter into science, but in general, it works.


My reading of the cooling arguments is that they are a blip on a longer term trend. The 60's and 70' arguments about ice ages were old ones, based on inferences about the record of ice ages that when traced to the present would put us in a climate state with ice sheets growing across parts of Europe and Canada.  

Coffee?  I think I need some more.