|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change is Real | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Fact-based Climate Debate Lee C. Gerhard — December 16, 2009 It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know: The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history. Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant. There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect. We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes: Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world. Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature. Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the hockey stick graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century. During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change. Contrary to many public statements: Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms. Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes. The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records. Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century. The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word ever is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean in the last 20 years, or the last 70 years. Ever means the last 4.5 billion years. For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, How long is ever? The answer is since 1979. And then ask, Is it still warming? The answer is unequivocally No. Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word unprecedented cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years. There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist. A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science. I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics. If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when. A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me. http://www.geocraft.com/...e_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf I can probably get a copy of his CV if this profile isn't enough:
Profile on Dr. Lee C. Gerhard: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is Principal Geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, having retired from the Directorship and as State Geologist in 1999. He received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and the M. S. and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government, and industry leadership and technical appointments, including petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology, and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology, and environmental public policy. He has been the State Geologist of North Dakota, and led a marine ecology and geology research and teaching laboratory in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company. He is licensed as geologist in Kansas and Wyoming. Dr. Gerhard is an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society`s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society. He has published more than 150 papers and books on geology, petroleum exploration, natural resources, and environmental policy. He co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Climate Change Issues Committee. He is active in wildlife and fisheries conservation issues in the U. S. and Canada, and has organized three recent major conferences on resource and environmental issues. He lectures widely in the U. S. and in Europe about environment and resources and global climate issues . Edited by petrophysics1, : increase paragraph spacing to separate slides from Gerhard's text Edited by petrophysics1, : put Gerhard's text in a box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
The AAPG has questioned the science behind human caused climate change and their statement on climate change is:
"In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years." AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years. Is this some kind of rebuttal? Seriously? This is the exact some non-science that I hear from Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition. Hasn't this line of argument been chewed on enough?
AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists Next up, foxes question need for expensive security at hen house; volunteer for guard duty.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I appreciate the links.
I'll admit that my post was an attempt to get Coyote to comment substantively on the paper since his wont is to post and run. I don't actually see all that much science in the paper.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me. Well, it displays a stunning lack of relevance. What it seems to show is that if you leave the climate to itself, rises in temperature (due to Milankovitch cycles or whatever) drive increases in CO2. This does not answer, and cannot answer, the question of what happens if you artificially increase CO2. 'Cos of that being a different question. It's like trying to argue that you can't kill someone by burying them alive by observing that in the normal course of events people die first and then are buried as a result of being dead. This is fortunately true, but it does not and cannot answer the question of what would happen if you did bury someone alive, for which we would need reference either to fundamental principles or to a totally different set of statistics. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Most excellent. For the video-impared: What is most excellent? What do they say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The full transcript of the show in Message 1 is at
Anthony Leiserowitz on Making People Care About Climate Change | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com# Here are some excerpts on the different groups of people and their reaction to global climate change information:
quote: That's based on public perception, not the science:
This is in spite of a large public misinformation\dismissive campaign by oil and coal industry to disenfranchise the science:
quote: So the response from Coyote is predictable, if she is skeptical of liberals and listens to the misinformation propaganda, and the response from Petrophysics is predictable, if he is skeptical of liberals and is concerned about his occupation, where he is given lots of propaganda to keep doing what he is doing. So what is the science saying?
quote: Some will some won't. One of the things I have learned is that it is easier to maintain a healthy environment than it is to regain one. The sooner we act the easier it is to have a beneficial effect on reducing the impact of these changes. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined:
|
No climate scientist, that I know of, would dispute that CO2 concentrations appear to lag behind temperature in the paleoclimate data. In fact there are a bunch of papers about this lag, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine; Lorius et al., 1990; Monnin et al., 2001, Science Magazine
There appears to be about a 1000 year lag between the time that temperatures increase and an increase in CO2 concentrations during the 5000 year warming trends. What happens during the rest of those 4000 years? Unless you believe that CO2 has NO impact on our climate, in which case I can not help you, then the data suggests that the rising CO2 amplifies the warming trend until equilibrium sets in. According to the research the impact of this CO2 is about 1/3 of the total warming. The fact that CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere should not be in dispute. It has been known for a very long time that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the data supports that conclusion. Humans are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, overwhelming the ability of the ocean and the biosphere to absorb the CO2, and we know the rise in CO2 is human caused because we have the isotope data to prove it. If you're interested in the literature you can check out these papers: Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170—193. Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
The AAPG has questioned the science behind human caused climate change and their statement on climate change is: "In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years." AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists
In other news, cigarette companies claim that people were dying from cancer before cigarettes became popular which casts serious doubt on the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me. You mean where the increase in carbon dioxide causes a feedback resulting in higher temps? I think the implications are pretty clear. The initial heating due to the changes in the Earth's wobble and orbit result in higher solar radiation. This, in turn, heats the oceans which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere (not to mention the melting of permafrost which releases massive amounts of methane). The increased CO2 causes a feedback response which causes more warming than the increase in solar radiation alone. It comes down to a very simple question based on very simple physics. If we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will this cause the atmosphere to trap more heat, the same amount of heat, or less heat? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The 32 most alarming charts from the government's climate change report | Grist
quote: Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
More or less, a "for whatever it's worth" link:
http://scienceblogs.com/...den/2013/07/09/climate-disconnect
quote: Link to full report:http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/...rt-2013-7-9.pdf There's also an interactive map link:http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=pag... Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So when Republicans go: "Geez, it hasn't been very hot this year, I doubt Global Warming" then people bitch about how its not about one single year and its a global trend thing about climate and not weather. And when Republicans don't react to one single year then people bitch about that too.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Yes, I agree.
My impression was "Kind of amusing but not really valid use of statistics". MooseProfessor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024