The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: More Global Warming articles  (Read 27013 times)

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #25 on: 02/05/2010 20:16:45 »
Maybe you have that link in another format?
As for the amount of deniers :)

They're shrinking, daily, and changing their views constantly.
I seem to remember an poll made one year ago?
With around 10 000 scientists involved in climate issues?

Asking if they thought we were the reason to the Global Warming we see today.
And I think they said a resounding yes :) They can all be misinformed naturally, but somehow I doubt it.


Actually, the reverse is true... the number of alarmists is decreasing daily.  I don't know of a poll of 10,000 scientists supporting global warming, but I do know there is a petition with over 31,000 scientists dissenting.  I believe it is being done by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

And I know several recent polls have shown that support for the alarmist's agenda is waning due to lack of science supporting it. 

You have still failed to answer my questions, instead insisting that you are right.  You have been unable to explain how bad data can be made good, instead you continue to insist the data is good.  This was exactly my point when I said this debate would go nowhere... you can't answer the problems, but because you have decided it's proven nothing can shake your devotion.  That's fine, you have that right, but I don't feel very motivated to lay out the truth for you, because I know from experience that nothing can shake the faith of a devout alarmist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #26 on: 10/05/2010 05:41:28 »
I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both :) Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so :)
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #27 on: 10/05/2010 17:45:42 »
I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both :) Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so :)

I have provided links to the GHCN, the NCDC and NOAA to back up my claims.  The format you can't view... it's a pdf file, download Adobe Acrobat reader(it's free), I'm not sure how you manage to browse much on the internet if you can't look at pdf files.

I don't choose to invalidate any data... the data invalidates itself.  I cannot change the fact that the data is poor, neither can anyone else.  If you have managed to come up with a way to make data which has 10% error range and make it accurate to .001%, please share?
 

Offline ericcarter13

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #28 on: 18/06/2010 14:25:25 »
Shanmugaraj acknowledged the efforts taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) in replanting mangroves under the National Mangrove Replanting Programme after the tsunami.

The exercise covered the whole of Malaysia and even the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) has been enlisted to find new ways to plant the mangrove trees in places that are hard to grow.

Shanmugaraj told Bernama, several non-governmental organisations including MNS are also actively involved in rolling out educational programmes for local communities and children, stressing on the importance of mangroves.

"We get funding from MNRE through the Forestry Department. It is a yearly funding to educate people on the importance of mangroves and MNS currently has two centers for these ongoing educational programmes," he said, adding that the two centers, one at KSNP and at the other MNS Eco Care Project, in Kerteh.

As for MNS Eco Care Project in Kerteh, the project involves three villages, namely Kampung Gelugor, Kampung Telaga Papan and Kampung Tengah as they are located in the mangrove belt along Sungai Kerteh.

With funds from the Optimal Group of Companies (a 10-year commitment up to 2020), MNS will be setting up an education center at a site of about a hectare, formerly a mangrove forest area near Kampung Gelugor, to be gazetted by the state government as the "Nature Education Centre".

According to Shanmugaraj, the Kerteh Centre will become a focus point in educating on the importance of biodiversity including the mangroves.

SOME FAILURES

Nevertheless, there were some mangrove replanting programmes at several places hit by the 2004 tsunami that did not work out due to the strong currents that washed away the mangrove saplings.

"MNS worked on a place in the Kuala Muda area in Kedah, that was badly hit by the tsunami. We brought school children and planted over 2,000 saplings but all were wiped out because of the strong current. The place has now turned into a mudflat.

"It will take a few more years for the mangrove trees to grow back naturally," said Shanmugaraj who has been with MNS for the last 16 years.

Over the years he has witnessed the destruction of the mangrove forests.

"It is sad to see our forests disappearing especially the mangrove forests and beaches. Whatever people throw upstream is all ending up on the public beach. It is even difficult to go for a swim in these beaches. One good example is Port Dickson.

"We are actually destroying our own future. I don't know whether the future generation can still swim in clear, crystal water or can they see corals anymore?

"Even now when we bring the urban kids for our environment programmes and they see the mangrove trees, the crabs, the prawns and the fish. Some of them are seeing them for the first time in their natural habitat," he added.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #29 on: 23/03/2011 05:43:28 »
That was weird, rereading you norcalclimber I tried the link again, and this time it downloaded? But the last time I tried it didn't? Don't know why it didn't that last time?

I read your pdf :) from 2008-9 and states that "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations." But you're not asserting that NOAA back up your claims there above, are you? I'm sure there are various scientists dissenting, but I sincerely doubt that NOAA and its 'National Climatic Data Center' NCDC does it? Same as I would doubt anyone proposing that NASA is a 'denier site'. And that I expect to be true for the Global Historical Climatology Network too. Those guys seems to labor with their own data interpretation taken from NCDC, which I found rather cool in fact as they do it on a 'hobbyist basis' as I understands it, reading them. The Blackboard.

Anyway :), as I tried to find info on it I came across this little pearl from 2008.  Eight out of ten; by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.

At the same time I found a petition stating that 31 000 'scientists' now denied global warming? You know, I've been watching it getting worse and worse, but disinformation really must pay off? I tried to find scientists supporting it on Google using : scientists supporting global warming petition : finding that the only thing it threw up was the exact opposite :) All about this new petition denying Global Warming, okay, so I set it in a citation instead, forcing Google too search for the exact wording : "scientists supporting global warming" petition : but still finding it being this 'deniers petition' that popped up as a first choice? Now I started to get a headache :)Normally I'm pretty good at mining information but?

Not that I doubted Google, well I do, but I'm also a little lazy :) So out of curiosity, as my next step, I wrote : does Google show a bias for climate deniers when searching : Now came the next surprise :) The first thing that popped up was this. 'Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort.' 2011

So? How the he* could I get the opposite result from what I typed in? If there had been a bias in a any direction it should be to 'my side', sort of :) Right? So how do Google weight the sites it presents? How much can you 'buy' there? That will probably be my next step. Well, it's kind of late here, and I have other things to do too, like get some sleep :) So I guess it can wait for now. But I know one thing. When the surveys/studys coming in, tells you one thing but people want to believe another, surveying and scientific studies lose as proven, on and on again, throughout history.

Now, I don't really care any more, history have its own way of proving who is right and I'm sure it will this time too. But Global warming is a mighty uncomfortable thing to postpone, until history throws it in your face. Because the longer you postpone it and when you finally has to face it you will already have signed away the possibility of making a difference. And even though you might find your own years comparatively comfortable, I expect the third world to view it differently. And the 'war on terrorism' will see a raise as disenchanted third worlders look at our, still relatively prosperous, society's. It will always be those poorest that pays the highest price when change comes and they will, at the very least, be just as easy to convince of their 'rights', as those denying what we see happening now.

As for the 'way' to make Global Warming firstly a 'political issue' I don't even want to comment, but I will anyway. That has to be rock bottom, or just possibly that special place where the rock bottom falls out :) Still, political beliefs and choices has a way of coming back to bite you in the a**, also proven by history. But it is very smart to make it such an 'issue', because we all have a view on 'politics' don't we? :) And when it is only 'politics' we can debate it, and the idea of a conspiracy gains credibility too. No longer 'scientists' but shady white-clad men and women, sneaking about, political conspirators for personal gain. :)

Sh*

Almost in the same vein as eh, Nazi propaganda maybe? With climatologists as our new scapegoats?
Long beards too maybe :) Got to admit that I always thought the Internet a 'educator', at least I wanted to think so, but seeing this new trend make me wonder.

But I'm sure I'll dig some more. I've gotten too curious to just let it be here.
==

If you want to see some more discouraging news about dismantling climate science you can read This..NASA. I will make a prognostication here :) In some years, as the coverage of our globe gets really bad, the deniers, although I expect the global climate to have gotten warmer, still will find ample opportunity's complaining over 'biased' and 'deficient' scientific studies, lacking scientific 'rigor', neglecting that it's their own contributions to common attitudes and unwillingness to support those studies that made them, just so.

Action and reaction as some might express it.
And now I really need to get some sleep :)
« Last Edit: 23/03/2011 06:56:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #30 on: 23/03/2011 18:32:23 »
Wow, it has been a long time since I posted anything.... It's hard to know where to begin, but I think the simplest way is just to say that the last time I participated in this forum, my understanding of science was atrocious.

My journey began on this forum though.  Reading the other posters, I realized that I didn't know enough about science.  But I didn't know yet at that point how much I truly had left to learn, lol.  With my new smart phone I had access to podcasts all of a sudden though and an ex-girlfriend had showed me Skeptoid, so that seemed a good place to start.  Skeptoid led me to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe...and the rest is history.  Since June of last year I have managed to listen to every SGU episode, as well as start in on others like Skeptically Speaking and Astronomycast.  Thanks to those great people my life has completely changed and I have been freed from some seriously ridiculous beliefs as well as developing far better critical thinking skills.  The more I have learned though, the more I realize I don't know, as is often the case  :)

Now to the actual topic at hand....

When it comes to global warming I am no longer a denier, I am however still somewhat skeptical of the urgency of change.  I don't see strong evidence that Europe is about to flood or that America will become a desert.  That of course is a fringe claim, and not one you are making. My stance is that we should definitely invest in efficiency and clean energy, but that the only realistic way for clean energy to be a reality is for it to be an economically sustainable solution and not just an environmentally sustainable solution.

As far as your points to my old argument...

The "31,000 scientists dissent" or whatever was referring to The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition Project.  If you google that you will find it.  It is not however compelling in any way as far as refuting global warming though.  It is nothing more than an argument from false authority on their part, since the "scientists" don't need to be and mostly aren't climate scientists.  On top of that, a petition doesn't really say anything about the science.  By using it as part of my argument I was making their same fallacy as well.

I do feel there are problems with the amount of evidence in favor of global warming though.  So far, it seems all of the evidence in favor of global warming only seems to qualify as a small preliminary study when you consider the magnitude and scale and variables involved in predicting global climate patterns.  The time span is a major problem as well, with our best data not covering anywhere near a long enough time span considering the topic. 

I don't mean this to imply that I think nothing is happening, just that I don't think we should fully leap into action without considering the full ramifications, and I don't think the need is urgent enough that we need to demolish the first world countries economies.

What do you think would be worse for the third world countries....the economic collapse of the first world and the cessation of all foreign aid, or a few degrees of global warming?

I don't think those are our only options though.  I think we can find a way to provide clean energy and limit global warming, as long as we focus on the best science as well as realistic global economics.  We need to find a solution that is both environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable.

Unfortunately I suspect the recent events in Japan will seriously hurt the nuclear program, which is currently our best and cheapest source of clean base load power.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #31 on: 24/03/2011 18:14:46 »
Yes, nuclear power might be a answer. If alternative energy sources can't satisfy our need then we need to look at it. But there you have the waste problem to consider too. Still, it's the best source we have when it comes to a lot of 'energy' quickly and relatively deliverable.

But if we are going to use it we have to make sure we don't just try to 'hide' our nuclear wastes. We need to have them under observation, we are not a species built for long time solutions, that's very easy to see. We might become at some later point :) but not yet. And it was nice reading you.
==

You're started on a 'spiritual journey' then norcalclimber, as a shaman might call it :)
Very cool, I wish you all luck, and your girlfriend sounds cool too.
:)

As for the urgency? I don't know, I think we'll react when we react.
Hopefully soon? But it's like you say, one first need to decide if it's a problem or not.
And to do that in a meaningful way one need to discuss, and think by oneself.
Like you're doing.

Good on you both :)
« Last Edit: 24/03/2011 19:48:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #32 on: 25/03/2011 00:44:53 »
Thanks yor_on, although I think I would call it an anti-spiritual journey, or a journey of truth rather than spiritual  ;)

The girlfriend who showed me Skeptoid is now an ex-girlfriend, I'm trying to convert my current girlfriend to skepticism  :)

As far as alternative energy being able to satisfy our need, I think it is safe to say that there is really nothing on the horizon which can come even close to satisfy our needs other than nuclear.  Home energy is the minority of the energy used, the rest is industrial/commercial. For that we need a large amount of power which is available on demand, which none of the other energy sources like wind and solar can produce.  Nuclear is extremely clean energy all things considered, especially compared to the only other reliable source....coal  :(

I think calling the spent fuel from nuclear reactors "waste" is somewhat of a misnomer.  The leftover fuel is still mostly fissable material once it is run through a breeder reactor.  It's just cheaper to use what is currently plentiful natural uranium.  We should definitely store the material where we can access it, since in future generations or future reactors it may be highly cost effective to use the "waste" as primary fuel.

I believe I heard something about Thorium reactors being able to use "waste" from other reactors?? Not sure about that though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
More Global Warming articles
« Reply #33 on: 25/03/2011 01:59:29 »
Norcalclimber :)

Oops, okay, she's still cool in my book, even though relations may change slightly :) and good luck with your new GF. 'Adversity is the first path to truth', as they say, just as 'necessity is the mother of invention'. ahem, couldn't stop myself there.. It's cool to argue, as long as one doesn't find oneself constantly dug in, in the trenches.

Anyway. I don't doubt that we at some time will develop strategies that works for taking care of nuclear waste, but until then there are two thing we should do.

1. Stop thinking 'long term solutions'. They don't exist, anywhere. And haven't existed since we first started to produce this waste 1954 at the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant.

2. Nuclear safety. That is a must, the more people we become, the more it will be like in Japan where you have ? 18- ? who knows?? maybe 20-30 million people at a 220 km radius from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. That's way too many.. No infrastructure can take care of them if there's a panic, or a real radiation leak, or both. No logistics exist for that type of scenario, only the very worst wars has had anything similar to that kind of mass migrations. So many would die.

But there is some existing designs that seems better than others, like this one maybe? Pebble bed reactor. 

Not that it can take care of the wastes, but in that, if it break down, it might regulate itself. When it comes to radioactivity, parts of the nuclear waste 'half time' life is millions of years, if you by that mean that they should come down to the natural background radiation we have on Earth, and that seem a reasonable approach (60 millions I think?) and that's a extremely long period of time.

So we need to keep the waste where we can't succeed in 'forgetting it'. Because that's what we really want when we speak of 'long time storage'. We want someone to assure us that it 'will be okay' and then turn our backs on it and forget that it ever existed. Let the 'experts' deal with it sort of. But we can't afford that kind of solution, or rather, your kids can't.

So use better designs and let the waste be where we can see it, and do something about it before it starts to leak as in the German Salt mines. And we need to stop keeping spent fuel rods in the nuclear facility, They should be at those waste facility's where we can monitor waste on a daily basis. At least for now. The real problem in Fukushima is that there might be as many as 600 000 spent fuel rods, worst case scenario that is, in those pools. That's just not acceptable. And placing them a bit away from the reactors as in USA isn't any better, well, maybe a little, but they shouldn't be there at all in a best case scenario, if you ask me that is :)
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 02:27:31 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

More Global Warming articles
« Reply #33 on: 25/03/2011 01:59:29 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums