'Calm before storm' may foreshadow climatic tipping point

Sep 17, 2008 By Lisa Zyga feature
Taipei 101 in Taiwan endures a typhoon in autumn 2005. Image credit: Alton Thompson.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Abrupt climate change has occurred on earth many times over the past millions of years. Climate scientists hypothesize that these sharp transitions may be caused when the earth system reaches a tipping point, or a critical value, resulting in a change of several degrees. These abrupt transitions have caused, for example, the formation and melting of glaciers throughout the earth, North Africa’s change from savannah to desert 5,000 years ago, and various other changes.

Over the past few decades, researchers have been gathering evidence showing that earth’s current climate has been slowly warming over the past century, leading to the question of whether it might reach another tipping point. But because determining the specific mechanisms that may cause tipping points is extremely difficult, scientists are simply unable to predict if and when future climate change might approach a critical threshold.

Now, a recent study has shown that there might be an early warning signal that heralds climatic tipping points. By analyzing the geological records of eight ancient abrupt climate shifts, scientists have found that each shift is each preceded by a period in which the system becomes increasingly slower in responding to natural perturbations, which is reflected as a decrease in the rate of change.

The scientists, from Wageningen University in The Netherlands and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, have published their study in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Because the researchers wanted to see if this information could be used as an early warning signal in the future, they only used data from before the actual transitions. They found that, while some of these “slowing down” periods were more extreme than others, it is highly unlikely that such behavior would appear randomly for the combined eight examples (less than a 0.3% chance).

“Our study has a dual significance,” co-author Marten Scheffer of Wageningen University told PhysOrg.com. “It shows that climate has tipping points, and it shows that the theoretically predicted early warning signal can really be detected in a large complex system.”

As the scientists explain, a climate system’s slowing down is not based on a specific mechanism (e.g. carbon levels or ozone depletion) but is instead a universal property of systems approaching a tipping point. Because of this, they hope that it will be possible to detect slowing down signs that may foreshadow a future tipping point. One such tipping point, they note, may be a situation in which human-induced climate change is no longer buffered but amplified by parts of the earth system.

However, the researchers add that the slowing down signs will only occur if the system is moving fairly gradually toward a critical point. If a future transition occurs more quickly than the eight transitions the researchers analyzed, slowing down may not precede the tipping point. The researchers note that, compared with the past transitions (which involved dynamics such as the ice caps and ocean heat contents), current trends in atmospheric carbon are occurring at a faster rate.

Right now, the researchers are looking for evidence that the current climate is slowing down. “We do that by looking at the faster subsystems, as we expect the slower parts of the system (oceans and ice) will not give a signal of slowing down that can be detected in the relatively small stretch of time, since humans have a large effect on greenhouse gases,” Scheffer said.

Besides climate change, slowing down may also be an early warning sign for other systems, since it is a universal property of systems approaching a tipping point. The scientists suggest that slowing down could precede tipping points in areas such as disease dynamics, physiology, and social and ecological systems. In different systems, Scheffer explained, the time between the slowing down and the tipping point varies.

“The time-span depends entirely on the typical rates of change of the system you study,” he said. “For instance, comparable (but different) early warning signals may be detected hours before a shift in a physiological system (such as epileptic seizures). In the climate examples, the system becomes slower right until the moment of the shift. It shows that the system is heading for a critical point, but it is difficult in practice to say how close that point is.”

More information: Dakos, Vasilis; Scheffer, Marten; van Nes, Egbert H.; Brovkin, Victor; Petoukhov, Vladimir; and Held, Hermann. “Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change.” 14308-14312, PNAS, September 23, 2008, vol. 105, no. 38.

Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Lava creeps toward road on Hawaii's Big Island

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US cities prep for warm climate without saying so

Sep 08, 2014

Climate change remains a political minefield across the U.S., despite the strong scientific consensus that it's happening, so some local leaders have hit upon a way of preparing for the potentially severe consequences without ...

Recommended for you

Icelandic volcano sits on massive magma hot spot

23 hours ago

Spectacular eruptions at Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland have been spewing lava continuously since Aug. 31. Massive amounts of erupting lava are connected to the destruction of supercontinents and ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Ana still vigorous

Oct 24, 2014

NASA's TRMM satellite saw that Tropical Storm Ana was still generating moderate rainfall is it pulled away from Hawaii. The next day, NASA's Aqua satellite saw that wind shear was having an effect on the ...

User comments : 63

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jscroft
3.2 / 5 (33) Sep 17, 2008
Because the researchers wanted to see if this information could be used as an early warning signal in the future, they only used data from before the actual transitions.


In other words, they failed to look at "slowdowns" that did NOT precede major climate shifts. The existence of even ONE such uncorrelated slowdown would seriously impact the predictive value of the event. Finding eight or more would render such an event no more predictive than flipping a coin.

This is the kind of mistake one might expect from a high-school lab assignment, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Since nobody could reasonably assert that such highly-educated researchers (and their peer-reviewers) are ignorant of basic detection theory, one wonders what other agendas are in play.
Rick69
2.3 / 5 (22) Sep 17, 2008
Sounds like a bullshit theory developed to cover their asses because of the failure of warming to continue in recent years as predicted by their "models".
Bazz
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 17, 2008
Sounds like opinions to fit personal truths, without knowing the details.

Why such disdain for this study, what i understand from it it takes historical data wich shows sudden climate shifts and tries to understand better why they occur and use it to improve the models we have to understand whats happening.

But if you have a preconception about climate research that wont matter of course ,they are all out to fool us into believing the hoax.
Roach
3.2 / 5 (19) Sep 17, 2008
@Bazz
Finding a corrolation between cause and effect is fine, but if you only look at right before the effects and no other time you get stupid results, like everytime I rear end a car I hit my brakes right before hand, ergo my brake pedal is causing me to hit the car in front of me, ergo if I hit the brakes the airbag should go ahead and deploy. based on the conventions of this study, a sound conclusion. Based on reality or even an observation of, oh when I hit the brake pedal it sounds kinda stupid. Also some of the terminology of the article indicates a bias of the authors "since humans have a large effect on greenhouse gases" Not true, compared to overall GHG emmisions we are a fairly small contributor, albeit maybe not one that is built into the equation. "One such tipping point, they note, may be a situation in which human-induced climate change is no longer buffered but amplified by parts of the earth system" "Abrupt climate change has occurred on earth many times over the past millions of years."= contradiction. Some how I doubt that Man is responsible for every "abrupt" climate change over the past millenia, and it is somewhat arrogant to think that current times are different and the temperature wouldn't change if we hadn't been here. I completely believe that climate change needs to be understood incase of another ice age, or what did they call the last hot spell... oh yeah "the Renaissance" of the 13th-14th centuries. Gosh that would be bad.
agg
2.3 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2008
Critical slowing down is easily understood in physical systems that are showing a higher degree of correlation as they approach the transition temperature. The mechanism is well known in the case of magnetism, spin states and other examples. Here they say nothing of the mechanism that would be highly correlated.

And so what if they find some way to predict this tipping point. Since it will be so catastrophic a few hours or days warning couldn't hardly prepare us. This would be especially true if we were forced to wait for the government to solve a problem for us.
gmurphy
3.1 / 5 (25) Sep 17, 2008
Roach, ok buddy, time for a reality check, GHG emission and absorption was at an equilibrium when we started burning fossil fuels. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a 21% since 1960 http://en.wikiped...xide.png This increase was caused by humans if it needs to be spelled out for you. The medieval warm period or the "hot spell" as you refer to it was not particularly hot http://en.wikiped...ison.png In fact multiple proxy temperature reconstructions indicate that the heating observed in the last 100 years is hotter. This has caused more extreme weather events all over the world http://en.wikiped...ters.jpg Our climate system is heading towards major disruption and our ability to develop a coordinated reaction is being crippled by people like you.
GrayMouser
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 17, 2008
Sounds like more trolling for dollars...

When mining for numbers (base of pyramids, astrological cycles, etc.) you are preforming numerology. You need to know why the slow downs occur before you can connect them to abrupt changes. You also have to look at all of the changes since you don't even have a theory for why they happen, only that you think they might be important, and look for cases that contradict this. What if they picked 8 cases out of 100 and the other 92 don't show this correlation?
holmstar
3.4 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2008
Sounds like more trolling for dollars...

When mining for numbers (base of pyramids, astrological cycles, etc.) you are preforming numerology. You need to know why the slow downs occur before you can connect them to abrupt changes. You also have to look at all of the changes since you don't even have a theory for why they happen, only that you think they might be important, and look for cases that contradict this. What if they picked 8 cases out of 100 and the other 92 don't show this correlation?


Not all storms produce tornados, but tornados are always preceded by the formation of a storm. I would say that this is a pretty important bit of info, no?

The same may apply to this study. You can't just dismiss it.
gragg
3.5 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2008
at jscroft and Rick69

I wonder if you actually read the original paper in PNAS. I did not, but I would not make comments about the authors scientific competence based on a condensed version of the study on a popular science website. Read the paper first, then you might even be able to voice some insightful criticism...
ofidiofile
3.4 / 5 (16) Sep 17, 2008
ajscroft: as far as i can tell by this report (which is only a summary of the actual findings, after all), the researchers found the slowdowns by looking at the climate shifts, i.e., they didn't simply pick climate shifts preceded by slowdowns. see holmstar's comment. jeez, no offense intended people, but some of you deniers would really benefit from some basic logic skills.
MikeB
2.4 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2008
"jeez, no offense intended people, but some of you deniers"

ofidiofile,
OK, "no offense", then call someone a "denier". You should apologize to these people. Just because someone does not agree with you they should not be equated with holocaust deniers. Shame on you. These ad hominems do nothing for your point of view, but they do impact negatively on you yourself.
HoP
3.4 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2008
This article did not say the researcher ignored data where no slowdown happened before a tip, only that they ignored data after a tip happened so as to focus on indicators that would be predictive. Those of you that want to deny global warming seem to grasp at anything you can to make the research look invalid.
kerry
3.3 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2008
Right on HoP.

Also, why don't you guys read the actual published paper? This goes for a lot of articles found on physorg. People find out one little thing that physorg doesn't mention and they declare the research invalid. Physorg is meant to be a quick review of science news. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of the research that's being done, READ THE ACTUAL, DAMN PAPER. You would expect professors to actually read your thesis before you have to defend it, right? It's only fair.
Roach
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2008
gmurphy, Whether or not humans are responsible isn't my major gripe with this article as it doesn't really address the issue except in a few small quips, the problem with the study is that you can't try to convert people based on a flawed study. They looked at 8 time periods all immediately before major climate changes. With out a control how can you know if the phenomenon is related or even exist. And to address your three wiki clips since I feel obligated now. First the industrial revolution, heavy usage of fuels, and mass deforestations started before 1960, the CO2 trend should go back further and not be taken above an active volcano for a correct picture. Next even with the blessing of modern technology and a well defined temperature scale, modern thermometers and thermocouple probes are often more that a degree apart. If you look at the last two thousand years the scales themselves have varied by more than 1 degree and the older measurements and even modern means of measuring the older temperatures have a margin of error greater than 1 degree. Lastly a major increase in disasters, in 1850 if an island was wiped off the face of the earth and killed everyone on the island, who reported it. even in 1920 before we had those great weather sats, if a tropical storm fizzled in the ocean did it count as a storm or a disaster, how about a flood in the trailer park 80 years before it was a trailer park. Yes an increasing human foot print will inevitably result in a higher number of disasters, just as it leads to wild animals in suburban back yards. More Seismographs made more sensitive, more earthquakes detected. Remember it wasn't that long ago when a tornado was something we didn't understand at all, Modern, relative to the tables presented, technology such as dopler radar have allowed us to detect tornados where no one would have looked earlier. I'm not saying that humans shouldn't be concerned or that we aren't responsible, but I don't think we need to make any drastic changes until we really do understand how we are affecting things. Wouldn't it be grand is we made all the changes, white washed our roads and roofs, bloted out the sun and successfully dropped the world temperature only to have our lineage talk of the folly of the 21st century and how we caused the great ice age. It was only about 30 to 40 years ago that another ice age was the big concern anyhow. Two questions: Why should I change, and what should I change?
jscroft
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2008
Those of you calling for us to "read the actual damned paper" are making a valid point. In defense, i have to point out that the "actual damned paper" costs about $30 to read... if I didn't (mostly) confine my reading to excerpts like the ones at PhysOrg.com, I'd have to get a second job! :)

Most of these summaries report conclusions. Some of them--like this one--also report on methodologies used. I don't think it's unreasonable to question a methodology when--at least as reported here--it has major flaws. Besides, it isn't as if PhysOrg is a two-bit outlet. If MY research were reported here, I'd go the extra mile to make sure it was reported correctly in its essentials.

OFIDIOFILE:

jscroft: as far as i can tell by this report (which is only a summary of the actual findings, after all), the researchers found the slowdowns by looking at the climate shifts, i.e., they didn't simply pick climate shifts preceded by slowdowns. see holmstar's comment. jeez, no offense intended people, but some of you deniers would really benefit from some basic logic skills.


My basic logic skills feed my cat and put a roof over our heads, thanks.

What the article ACTUALLY SAYS is this: "Because the researchers wanted to see if this information could be used as an early warning signal in the future, they only used data from before the actual transitions."

Of course one might read that in different ways, but the most straightforward reading is that the researches constrained their analysis to the time series immediately surrounding the climate shifts in question.

That's a sensible approach if you want to understand the structure of such a shift. The trouble arises when you want to PREDICT a shift. In that case, you also need to examine similar "precursor" events that may NOT have been followed by climate shifts. I mentioned detection theory earlier... without extending the analysis in this way, you can't get a handle on the false-positive rate of your detection hypothesis, and as a result it's impossible to characterize its predictive value.

OFIDIOFILE, I'd like to point out that the opposite of "denier" is "believer". Neither position is really appropriate within a scientific context, where we have the luxury of being able to test our hypotheses against the physical world.

Asking hard and pointed questions about politically sensitive research isn't "denying". Quite the opposite: it's the only way REAL science can address such topics and retain its soul.
flubber
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2008
I don't think they did a service to anyone, either pro or con. Picking 8 is not very scientific. I may have missed it, and have no intention of re-reading this again. But was the changes they choose going into a ice age or warming stage? I would like to play poker with these guys.
RamblinglyVeryBored
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2008
Since someone mentioned it.

Oil is not a Fossil Fuel.

2 Theories have exist. One its a fossil fuel the other that it's not. Neither had any real evidence. But we all learned about it being a fossil fuel. Recently they discovered that it is in fact NOT a fossil fuel. So the scientific community is toiling with this change of things. You can search the web and find articles about it. Although it's been seriously under-reported.
gragg
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2008
By now I did read the original paper, and PhysOrg does a pretty good job in reviewing it. The authors look at different historic transitions in earths climate. Cold to warm, warm to cold and humid to dry, the data is the content of some kind of dust or percentage of carbonate etc. in various sediment cores. There is a longer discussion about how the data was prepared for the study (and I understand the analysis of time series with sometimes not equidistant data points or more or less time resolution is tricky).
All the 8 studied events had been suggested before to have been caused by positive feedback after a tipping point. The PNAS paper looks for a universal property of such tipping points, namely the decreasing autocorrelation, in the 8 named events and confirms its occurence. This is more about giving independent possible evidence for the existence of tipping points in earths climate.

I guess the discussion of whether these findings can be used to predict future tipping points is just a good additional selling point.

GrayMouser
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2008
... the data is the content of some kind of dust or percentage of carbonate etc. in various sediment cores.


Well, it seems that ocean sediment records over 150 Million years old have problems.
http://www.scienc...4202.htm
Bazz
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2008
Very interesting indeed, but what does it mean GM?

That perhaps estimates about events that happened hundreds of millions arent aged correctly or the amount of plant material cannot be determined by it.According to the article they showed that interpretation how the C12/C13 ratio changes is incorrect and needs reinterpretation.

And that will happen, scientists will look at it carefully learn about it and will rethink how it behaves.The result will be that the understanding of the matter improves and the models become stronger.

In short-business as usual, science progresses trough knowledge.

Bazz
3.3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2008
Some of you need to work on the readibility of their posts, dont want to lecture you on your writing but big blocks of text are hard to read.

please use more spacing if you want your posts to be read.Jscroft is a perfect example.
his posts look good and he makes clear points.

jscroft
2.8 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2008
Why, thank you, Bazz! :)
PPihkala
1.3 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2008
I wonder if they have any need to predict abrupt change in earth climate. There is already one mechanism that is there to cause that with current climate change. And part of that change is human induced, that is sure. Anyway this is the mechanism: When temperatures in Siberia raise enough, there will be permafrost melting. And when that happens, the soil will release lots of methane that is currently trapped there. Methane then warms the earth more and causes runaway change.

And I think the resulting weather at that point will not be as pleasant that we are customised to. I just hope that change will not happen in my lifetime (I'm 40 now), but I fear that it can happen if we don't find soon ways to stop this change and even reverse it. One has to remember that even if we now stopped the pollution that is driving the change, temperatures would still rise in future, because earth is only heading towards equilibrium with it's energy balance. If we only could do that, but grimly the prediction is for more pollution each year.

We quite literally are in a coal-powered train, that has finite amount of tracks left. If we would be sensible, we would try to stop and reverse our train, before we run out. Instead we burn more each passing moment and when we are going to see the actual end of the track, there will be no time to kill the speed that we have accumulated already. Anybody want to dispute this?
jscroft
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2008
I wonder if they have any need to predict abrupt change in earth climate. There is already one mechanism that is there to cause that with current climate change. And part of that change is human induced, that is sure. Anyway this is the mechanism...


No, PPihkala, it is NOT sure that human activities have caused any global-scale climate change (as opposed to local changes, which we ARE capable of, thankfully).

This is a classic correlation/causation trap. You might correctly observe that humans are capable of forcing changes in CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere. You might ASSERT that such changes cause the climate changes you fear... but so far nobody has been able to DEMONSTRATE that assertion outside the margin of error.

The same argument holds for your permafrost mechanism. It's an interesting hypothesis... but nobody's ever demonstrated it to be a VALID one.

Not even close.

Like its material cousins, a chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.
jyro
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2008
Controlling climate on earth is impossible. The resources would be better spent preparing for the inevitable change.
gragg
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2008
jscroft: what is your conclusion then? What to do with all these missing proofs and weak arguments? I guess you won the logic competition. But what's next for you?
Bazz
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2008
May i remind you that the overwelming majority of climate scientists agree on that CO2 is the main driver of the climate change.

We are changing our atmosphere by pumping CO2 to the earths surface.

It is unsure what the result of this action is but many think it will be problematic for many people.

The most convincing for me so far is that big scietific organisations have issued statements with specific warnings.

There is as far as i know no convincing source that challenges all of this.

jscroft
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2008
Bazz, what an "overwhelming majority" of climate scientists BELIEVE is utterly irrelevant. The facts are what they are, and no amount of belief (or "denial", for that matter) will move them an electron's fuzzy radius.

Moreover, there IS no "overwhelming majority." I will direct your attention to this 2003 survey of climate scientists: http://thedeadhan...ing.aspx

On the question of whether human activity is causing climate change, the results of this survey were as follows:

Agree: 56%%
Disagree: 30%
Uncertain: 14%

Hardly an "overwhelming" majority, was it?

jscroft: what is your conclusion then? What to do with all these missing proofs and weak arguments? I guess you won the logic competition. But what's next for you?


As I mentioned above, Gragg, my initial comment was merely an off-hand rant. Now I'm just following the exchange where it takes me. :)
jscroft
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2008
As I mentioned above, Gragg, my initial comment was merely an off-hand rant. Now I'm just following the exchange where it takes me. :)


Heh. I'm getting my threads confused... the rant I mentioned was regarding "extinct" tree frogs at http://www.physor...974.html

Same argument applies, though.
jscroft
2.7 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2008
jscroft: what is your conclusion then? What to do with all these missing proofs and weak arguments? I guess you won the logic competition. But what's next for you?


Okay... I've had time to think about it, and I didn't answer the question clearly.

There are so much media hype and political capital swirling around the notion of anthropogenic climate change that the actual state of ground truth has been entirely concealed. This is unfortunate, for three reasons:

1. We are committing vast resources toward the solution of a problem that may not ACTUALLY be a problem;

2. To the extent that the "problem" requires a solution, we are going about it in ways that will NOT produce the desired effect;

3. An army of sleazy political and commercial opportunists have seized on the general climate of fear that pervades this confusion, to the detriment of our wallets, our liberty, and our understanding of the Universe we live in.

None of this would be possible if the people who FUND this nonsense--i.e., you and I--asked the same kind of tough questions and required the same kinds of straight answers that we do of a real estate agent, a used car salesman, or anybody else with an interest in the contents of our wallets.

Many of us DON'T ask those questions because we have been--to put it bluntly--bamboozled. Rather than dazzled with brilliance, we are baffled with bullshit. I don't know how else to explain the phenomenon of otherwise critical thinkers prating on about "scientific consensus" and throwing up HYPOTHETICAL climatic mechanisms to explain observations already fully accounted for by ESTABLISHED ones.

It's silly, it's expensive, and it's DANGEROUS, since many of the above-mentioned opportunists have as their fully-articulated goal something approximating the destruction of the United States, at least in any form recognizable to our founding fathers.

I don't mind change, per se, and I don't mind a good argument. But I object when the other side can't get its facts straight and instead depends on feature films, Hollywood socialites, and character assassination to move their agenda forward.

History teaches us that all such roads lead to the gulag.
mikiwud
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2008
Then we have the EU politbureau!
They are like the suicide squad in The Life of Brian.Carbon Cap and "green taxes" so high that no-one can afford gas and electicity or to manufacture anything.Economic suicide
,especially if China and India etc just carry on as normal.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2008
I think I've finally found someone who gets it.

Thank you jscroft. Thank you.
Bazz
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2008

Your argument that its expensive is countered by a growing number of economists who believe its more expensive to do nothing now.

So the statements of scientific organisations you just discard as nonsense.

"A Growing Threat to Society"

AAAS Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society." The statement was approved on 9 December 2006 and released on 18 February at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

NAS-The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all levels, business leaders and economists. Although the scientific understanding of climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research in direct support of decision making is needed.

From-http://www7.natio...view.asp

This alone makes me pretty confident that its real and serious

People who agree always are getting it.
Bazz
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2008
So you have the argument that the heartland institute says there is only a small majority of scientists saying that the current effect leads to CATASTROPHIC global warming.

My argument was that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that CO2 is the major driver of climate change,and we are doing it.

There is no scientific discussion about that the discussion is about what are the dangers of this happening and how can we minimise them.

The heartland institute isnt uncontroversial at least.

From wikipedia:
The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]

Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:
"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[7]
"The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[7]
"A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[7]
"The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."[7]

In March 2008, the Heartland Institute sponsored a gathering of global warming skeptics in New York City, at which the participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[8][9]

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."[11]

In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list, writing that "They [the scientists] have no right%u2014legally or ethically%u2014to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography." The Institute did rename the list from its original title (chosen by its public relations department) to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares", to clarify that the scientists in question do not doubt global warming. Ultimately, the Heartland Institute concluded that "... the point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis."

Read the whole article to discover more about its ties to the tobacco, oil and other industries.

If you believe this cancels out my argument ,its a stretch.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2008
So you have the argument that the heartland institute says there is only a small majority of scientists saying that the current effect leads to CATASTROPHIC global warming.

My argument was that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that CO2 is the major driver of climate change,and we are doing it.

There is no scientific discussion about that the discussion is about what are the dangers of this happening and how can we minimise them.
That's not true. If the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in catastrophic AGW effect then why did 3 of the major scientific bodies step up and push a petition of 37000 signatures from scientists to have the US vote against the Kyoto Accord? There is no overwhelming majority. Most scientists say they don't know, or don't believe in AGW. Most being more than 50%, which precludes overwhelming majorities on any side of the discussion.


The heartland institute isnt uncontroversial at least.

From wikipedia:
The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]

Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:
"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[7]
"The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[7]
"A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[7]
"The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."[7]

In March 2008, the Heartland Institute sponsored a gathering of global warming skeptics in New York City, at which the participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[8][9]

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."[11]

In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list, writing that "They [the scientists] have no right%u2014legally or ethically%u2014to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography." The Institute did rename the list from its original title (chosen by its public relations department) to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares", to clarify that the scientists in question do not doubt global warming. Ultimately, the Heartland Institute concluded that "... the point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis."

Read the whole article to discover more about its ties to the tobacco, oil and other industries.

If you believe this cancels out my argument ,its a stretch.


That's one publication. Here's a bigger one, the petition that struck down US inclusion in the Kyoto Accord. 31000 US scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

And here's one about the 15000 scientists that protested the Kyoto Accord. http://www.sepp.o...ion.html

It's not just oil companies and other industrial giants that want truth in science. It's the scientists.
Bazz
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2008
the oregon petition huh it has its credibility issues? http://en.wikiped...Petition

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located about seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.

And SEPP also has the same credibility isuues: http://en.wikiped...Science_&_Environmental_Policy_Project

Both these petitions are a decade old ,back then they were considered as misrepresentative.

Back then it may have been uncertain if humans were the cause,science has made progress since then and made a strong case that we are the cause.There is no discussion there ,only between laymen, rightfully ignored by serious science.

I stand by my claim the most convincing evidence comes from AAAS and NAS.

"A Growing Threat to Society"

AAAS Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society." The statement was approved on 9 December 2006 and released on 18 February at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

NAS-The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all levels, business leaders and economists. Although the scientific understanding of climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research in direct support of decision making is needed.

From-http://www7.natio...view.asp

This alone makes me pretty confident that its real and serious
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2008
Yes, but did you read the papers that your articles are based on?

A lot of them draw directly from the First and Second IPCC review, both of which have severe credibility issues.

That and using wikipedia to cite inconsistency is rather hilarious itself. Especially from the guy who takes the opinion of scientists over the facts from lay people.
Bazz
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2008
Yes i read all 254.635.119 pages in 14.654.576 research papers, if you think i missed some let me know.Thats a rather silly question only to cast doubt.I have my information from many resources and the ones i mention are the most convincing i could find.

I suppose anything tied to the un and al gore is untrustworthy, but the nas and aaas are not taking information from the ipcc.

Wikipedia is a good point to start getting information, but i dont think anyone should take one source as truth.

But why are you talking about the IPCC when my argument is about NAS and AAAS?, here are the links to the sites,they are no wiki you know.

http://www.aaas.o..._change/

http://www.nasonl...geServer

They are the most trustworthy when it comes to science, no matter how often you ignore them they wont go away.

If you are somewhat serious about science you cant just use suggestive remarks to make something look bad.
You will have to understand how things work and critisise it accordingly, with coherent arguments that are provable.

If you have a better argument i will take you more seriously.I hope you can do the same when i come up with a better argument
Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2008
When the work you tout as being trustworthy and intellectually honest is based on work which has been discredited and disproven, then you have a completely trustworthy and intellectually honest set of papers with discredited and disproven findings.

And take any accolades with a grain of salt when they're given to the group by the same body that holds their charter and funding.

In the above cases, US Congress.
Bazz
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2008
Yes its a conspiracy.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2008
No, it's a political agenda, a very transparent one. It still surprises me that otherwise intelligent people fail to see it.

What was one cause that united both conservative and liberal parties, gained the praise of celebrities, and unified a country divided on political agendas.

WW2... no wait AGW.
Bazz
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2008
Ah so youre saying that you know better than the rest of people who dont think like you, they are all fooled by politics.

Yes if you would understand what politics really are you would see that we are all fooled, but that understanding would make your conclusion rather silly.

I,m not sure but you seem to say that Human induced global climate change has brought conservative and liberal parties together?

Please tell me more, i am fooled into thinking there is a political war going on, oh the press is in it too isnt it?

As i understand you so far: science, politics conservative and liberal, the press, us congress
are all fooling us into believing something thats clearly not true.

Are there any good guys ? and could you tell me who they are?

Velanarris
3.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2008
Ah so youre saying that you know better than the rest of people who dont think like you, they are all fooled by politics.

Yes if you would understand what politics really are you would see that we are all fooled, but that understanding would make your conclusion rather silly.

I,m not sure but you seem to say that Human induced global climate change has brought conservative and liberal parties together?

Please tell me more, i am fooled into thinking there is a political war going on, oh the press is in it too isnt it?

As i understand you so far: science, politics conservative and liberal, the press, us congress
are all fooling us into believing something thats clearly not true.

Are there any good guys ? and could you tell me who they are?

Well if you spent some more time reading rather than fishing for attention on Physorg, you'd probably know.

The AGW movement is economically based, as was Greenpeace back when it was founded, and subsequently the entire Green movement.

The motivation for the AGW camp is to control resouorce expenditure and maintain an economic status quo. This si sold to the public under the guise of green guilt and flimsy scientific articles with alarmist headlines and questionable hypothesis. I call them hypothesis because they are not theories due to a lack of experimentation processes and in most cases, peer review.

Now someone like you will read the "paper" or a synopsis and take it as fact since you've probably been raised to not question authorities on an issue within their realm of knowledge, as most people are. Issue here is, the papers are typically taken out of context or only relate to a miniscule part of the underlying processes that may be at play.

For example, you're rather fond of spouting that quote:

"It's no longer a question in the scientific community as to whether human made global warming is happening, it's a matter of when..."

But it certainly is a question in the scientific community as the overall climate processes and their sub components are not well documented or understood.

Papers using terms like "radiative forcing" or "Tropopausic refraction index" are tossed huge amounts of grant money to come to the preconceived conclusion that activists and politicians are looking for in order to push an agenda that suits their aims.

Lets take a look at some recent legislation in my home state of Massachusetts. A law was recently passed that allowed for a "green credit" for using alternative energy sources to power your home. Subsequently there were two more laws passed allowing resource companies to increase their consumer cost by any percentage they deem necessary to ensure profitability.
So effectively the laws allowed people to setup wind power generators and solar cells on their homes, but also allowed the electric company to greatly increase their charge per kWh. The average electric bill of an inner city family rose by 18%. Your average suburban family noticed a decline of about 10%.

I enjoyed getting a break on my electric, and the funny thing is, that was prior to me investing in any sort of secondary power sources. So the question has to be asked, who footed the bill?

Answer: People who couldn't afford an 18% increase in energy costs.

That's simple economic separation of the classes. It's historically been used as a control mechanism for the upper and middle classes to control the lower class.

This is favorable for me as I'm upper middle class and at my age, will be able to enjoy the benefits of class separation. Problem is I think it's evil. To hold someone else down for no reason other than "I can" is not a noble cause, and as the AGW movement are the driving force behind it, I'm duty bound to expose junk science that forces unnecessary social reforms that are a detriment to my fellow man. That makes me a good guy, as well as anyone else who challenges generalists in scientific pontification about misunderstood or poorly understood processes.
Bazz
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2008
So it is a not conspiracy after all, all those hippies decided to go with the system and they used the system to have their share of the power.

Sounds like instead of whining they learned to play along, i dont see the problem.

Unfortunatly you seem to blame a lot on them, instead of accepting that they have a voice.

It seems to consume you and you blame everyting you dont like on "them"

Its not a conspiracy its people working with the system for the common good.

But i guess we have a different opinion, you may think the system is evil.Its not its just the way it is with all its problems until we find a better way.

You cant blame everyting on one group you oppose, its everyones fault, in a democracy the people choose their leaders on their best judgement.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
So it is a not conspiracy after all, all those hippies decided to go with the system and they used the system to have their share of the power.

Sounds like instead of whining they learned to play along, i dont see the problem.

Unfortunatly you seem to blame a lot on them, instead of accepting that they have a voice.

It seems to consume you and you blame everyting you dont like on "them"

Its not a conspiracy its people working with the system for the common good.

But i guess we have a different opinion, you may think the system is evil.Its not its just the way it is with all its problems until we find a better way.

You cant blame everyting on one group you oppose, its everyones fault, in a democracy the people choose their leaders on their best judgement.

You're going to have to point out where I said hippies are responsible. Or where I said the system of government is evil. Then follow it up with exactly what group I'm blaming for the AGW movement, seeing as I outlined 3 or 4 groups up there.

This is pure sophistry on your part.
Bazz
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Yes indeed its sophistry, you seem to need it.

There is a lot of you reasoning that needs to be corrected.

What is your problem with the system to start with, there are a lot of good reasons to criticise the system.You in the other hand seem to always blame "them"

In addition why do you take comments spin their meaning to fit your own resoning, but when someone does the same to you you seem to get all anal about it.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Yes indeed its sophistry, you seem to need it.

There is a lot of you reasoning that needs to be corrected.

What is your problem with the system to start with, there are a lot of good reasons to criticise the system.You in the other hand seem to always blame "them"

In addition why do you take comments spin their meaning to fit your own resoning, but when someone does the same to you you seem to get all anal about it.


I'm not getting into a flame war with you on this, so instead I'll ask you a very straightforward question.

Has AGW been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

This would be to the point that it's a known entity and it can no longer be called just a theory. I say no, it hasn't, and basing any sort of public or private policy off of it is not a good course of action. What are you views on this question?
Bazz
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
As i have said before, we live in a world of probabilities, not certainties.There always will be a shadow of a doubt on anything, thats the way it is.

As i have said before the genereal consensus is that global climate change is real, CO2 is the main driver of this change.
We increased the CO2 concentration with 35% from pre-industrial values.

There are alternative theories to the general accepted mechanism, but none has been successfull to even dent what i just said.

But there will always be doubt indeed wich goes for any truth we have.

Do you ever doubt that some truths you hold may not be right?I hope we all do, so we can change for the better.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
As i have said before, we live in a world of probabilities, not certainties.There always will be a shadow of a doubt on anything, thats the way it is.

As i have said before the genereal consensus is that global climate change is real, CO2 is the main driver of this change.
We increased the CO2 concentration with 35% from pre-industrial values.
Well my disagreement here isn't in the figures but more in the terms you're using. There is not a general consensus that CO2 is causing Global warming, nor that CO2 is the driving factor in our climate change.

There are alternative theories to the general accepted mechanism, but none has been successfull to even dent what i just said.
This is the second point on which I'm disagreeing with you. The accepted mechanism by which CO2 would cause global warming is radiative forcing. Short description is that the sun's energy hits the earth and is converted into Infrared radiation. This IR or blackbody radiation eminates omnidirectionally from it's point of origin and is absorbed by green house gasses. I completely agree with this theory, it's a known entity and 100% accurate.

Where I disagree with the AGW crowd is in two places, saturation and heat displacement mechanisms. CO2 at a level of 280ppm, the estimated concentration prior to human CO2 production booms through industrialization has a total absorption value of 10 meters.

Tat means that at a concentration of 280 ppm all IR radiated from a body will be completely absorbed within 10 meters of the point of origin on all possible absoption bands. This is an experimentally proven value. Now CO2 has a logarithmic relationship with absorption. So if you double CO2 concentration to 560ppm then total absorption would occur in 5m rather than 10, conversely if you cut CO2 concentration to 140ppm total absorption would be in 20m.

Now the point of the AGW theories relating to CO2 and AGW are that increasing CO2 will trap more IR in the atmosphere. The problem I have with this is that in order for IR to actually escape without being absorbed you would have to have a CO2 concentration of 0.38ppm, which is impossible due to volcanism and other natural processes. Now if you really wanted to get technical we could also go into chemical spectography where we compare CO2 against other GHG's like water vapor or N2 or Methane which occupy in some part the same absorption bands as CO2 and then the math would get even hairier but even less supportive of CO2 being a driving force in AGW.

Does that make my stance on AGW and CO2 a bit more clear? There isn't a mechanic that explains why CO2 is a potent enough GHG to cause any warming, let alone catastrophic warming.
jscroft
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
Radiative forcing isn't the whole story.

Of objections to radiative forcing as a mechanism for climate change, the most pernicious is the question of flux. Although movements of global temperature clearly correlate with variations in insolation due to the Sun's five major cycles, the DEGREE of historical change has been inexplicably out of proportion with the magnitude of insolation change.

Have a look at this: http://www.junksc...mate.htm

This research came out in 2006. It has barely received any play in the mainstream media, most likely because is presents a model that COMPLETELY accounts for historical and current global temperature change, thus giving the lie to AGW.

The model is simple:

1. It turns out that terrestrial cloud formation is driven by cosmic rays. This discovery was an unexpected shot from left field, but the supporting evidence is about as solid as it gets.

2. Cosmic ray flux is effectively constant, so we should naively expect the average degree of cloud cover to remain constant as well.

3. When solar activity increases, Earth's magnetic field captures extra charged particles from the solar wind.

4. These charged particles deflect incoming cosmic rays, resulting in a reduction in average cloud cover and increased insolation.

The bottom line is that the cosmic ray/cloud connection serves to AMPLIFY the insolation effect of the solar cycle. Combine these observations with radiative forcing, and the entire available temperature record is accounted for to within the margin of error.

AGW becomes superfluous, because there are no observable effects left for it to explain.

Most importantly, this model is FALSIFIABLE. The next solar maximum is expected around 2011-2012. If this model is correct, we should also see a global minimum in cloud cover and a local maximum in the rate of global warming.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Oh you wrecked it:) That was going to be my next point.
jscroft
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
You snooze, you lose! :)
Bazz
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
Let me tell you how it works,

The scientific community creates "truths" based on models supported by studies.Its a matter of buiding a believable and coherent truth consistent with reality.

For this truth to change someone would have to come up with a way to prove its incorrect.Its not easy to change a accepted truth so for it to change you would have to come up with very strong arguments, a dogmatic thing is hard to overthrow.

If there were such strong arguments against the common accepted truth people would use it to build their reputation, it virtually guarantees you a nobel prize, and we would see it all over the main stream media.

That hasnt happened yet so i remain skeptic of any alternative theory that hasnt and probably never will make it into the model.

But at least you are trying now,Velannarris, interesting but throwing with facts doesnt impress me, Considering your past way of not countering any of my arguments with any substance i have no intention to do so now.
If you want to measure your personal beliefs up agains general concensus show me where you got that information so i can check it.

Grandure claims of scientists do not impress me either,especially when there are others that dispute that claim,

http://news.bbc.c...7393.stm

Henrik Svensmark makes big claims about his hypothesis but its relevance is disputed.

This is a controversial claim at least, but it is interesting research, to claim this "proves" there is no effect from rising CO2 levels would be equally grandeur.

Good research, bad conclusion.

He doesnt have a model he describes an effect that may or may not have an influence on cloudcover.

I dont dismiss the research, but dont take his conclusions seriously as it seems to be a recurring theme with him.

So far the scientific community doesnt seem impressed either.

Its not that i want to disagree with you guys but it all seems more of the same, i think i will only be impressed if a study substantiates itself by impressing the experts.

gragg
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2008

Another pro-contra AGW and neverending proof-me-wrong discussion.

There are a number of interesting articles by Naomi Oreskes, who does not seem to strongly favour either side of the debate. They are about whether there is a scientific consensus about AGW in the peer reviewed literature and why or why not "the general consensus" could be misleading. Maybe she was already proven to be wrong or worse by one of the camps, but I find these articles worth reading (and there might be people who did not read them yet):

http://historyweb.../Papers/
ScientificConsensusonclimate.pdf

http://www.ametso...cuments/
Chapter4.pdf

Discussions as displayed here every other week do not lead to any better understanding of the climate which we probably all agree on is neccessary.

gragg
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2008
jscroft
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
--sigh--

From Bazz's link:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.


Except global temperatures have NOT risen steadily. They have peaked.

"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.


... assuming that there is no lag between the solar event and its effect on cosmic ray flux. That's silly... we know that the cosmic ray deflection process depends on an ACCUMULATION of charged particles in the magnetosphere. Naively, one might suggest that these solar "burps" simply didn't put out enough material, over a long enough period, to produce the sought-after effect.

Of course, we don't know which case obtains. And, when I say WE, I mean NOBODY does... and it is at least disingenuous for that point not to be made in the IPCC paper.

Unless, of course, the IPCC's point was not to discover truth but to protect its own funding.

IPCC has demonstrated again and again that they are quite comfortable with telling only the parts of the story that support their own hypotheses. That isn't science... it's politics. And it causes me and lots of other educated people to mistrust not only what they have to say, but the veracity of the data they generate to support their claims.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Let me tell you how it works,

The scientific community creates "truths" based on models supported by studies.Its a matter of buiding a believable and coherent truth consistent with reality.
That is absolutely wrong and now I know why you're diametrically opposed to the papers I've posted.

Scientific truths come about not through modeling, as anyone can create a model with arbitrary values to fit past data and exmplify future points.

Real scientific truths come about through the scientific method. Hypothesis, test, verify. A person comes up with a hypothesis, creates a test and performs that test to either verify or falsify his stance. This either tosses his hypothesis into the scrap heap or verifies his hypothesis to the point of theory.

Further testing is made which results in refinement of the theory into either a truth or an accurate or inaccurate theory.

Creating models based of data that may or may not be accurate does not create a scientific truth.

For this truth to change someone would have to come up with a way to prove its incorrect.Its not easy to change a accepted truth so for it to change you would have to come up with very strong arguments, a dogmatic thing is hard to overthrow.
Well in the case of CO2 and AGW I think my statement above pretty much knicks it unless you have a companion factor to your argument that is as of yet undisclosed. As for the sources of my statement above the infomation is rather common knowledge. CO2's relationship to IR absorption is well documented by many minds greater than I, a short google trip will yield the sets of data and math that exemplify my statement.

If there were such strong arguments against the common accepted truth people would use it to build their reputation, it virtually guarantees you a nobel prize, and we would see it all over the main stream media.
That's not necessarily true. I know this is old hat, but look at the case of Al Gore. Al Gore has received a Noble prize for his work in climatology, however, the man has done nothing more than fund a movie that used inaccurate facts to cast an alaming outlook on our future climatological state, while a mind like Stephen Hawking hasn't won a Noble prize with theories that have been found true and have greatly broadened our understanding of the universe and human knowledge as a whole.

That hasnt happened yet so i remain skeptic of any alternative theory that hasnt and probably never will make it into the model.

But at least you are trying now,Velannarris, interesting but throwing with facts doesnt impress me, Considering your past way of not countering any of my arguments with any substance i have no intention to do so now.


I'm not sure what you're saying here but if I wanted to be snarky and read between the lines it looks like you're conceding.


If you want to measure your personal beliefs up agains general concensus show me where you got that information so i can check it.

Grandure claims of scientists do not impress me either,especially when there are others that dispute that claim,

http://news.bbc.c...7393.stm

Henrik Svensmark makes big claims about his hypothesis but its relevance is disputed.

This is a controversial claim at least, but it is interesting research, to claim this "proves" there is no effect from rising CO2 levels would be equally grandeur.

Good research, bad conclusion.

He doesnt have a model he describes an effect that may or may not have an influence on cloudcover.

I dont dismiss the research, but dont take his conclusions seriously as it seems to be a recurring theme with him.


Well we can put that shoe on the other foot and point out the IPCC reviews, the latest NAS review, and many of the founding minds of AGW's criticisms of manipuling statistical data for modeling.

Its not that i want to disagree with you guys but it all seems more of the same, i think i will only be impressed if a study substantiates itself by impressing the experts.
Now, which experts are you referring to? If we had this conversation a few hundred years ago, and lets say we were talking about Copernicus' theory of a solar centered universe. The common theme of the time was "the earth is the center, there is no question" and that wasn't jsut an overwhelming majority, that was EVERYONE but Copernicus. We could fast forward a few hundred years to Edwin Hubble who destroyed the predominant "steady state" theory of the universe with his discovery of stella red and blue shifting. Just because there is an expert majority backing a theory does not make it correct. And regardless of whether an expert is impressed or not, none of them can legitimately deny the basic fundamentals of infrared spectometry, which state CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming. Otherwise we would have already died out due to a rampant run away heating of the planet.


I'd request you head to the below link and have a good read, then see if your opinion changes a bit.
http://www.junksc...enhouse/
gragg
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Huh, I did not know that Stephen Hawking's theory has been found to be "true", and anyway, how would you measure the evaporation of a black hole?

On the other hand, Al Gore did not win a nobel price for any climatology work, but the nobel peace prize "...for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change...", i.e. making a movie. What's wrong with that?
Bazz
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2008
Its propaganda and they are against that.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
Huh, I did not know that Stephen Hawking's theory has been found to be "true", and anyway, how would you measure the evaporation of a black hole?
He mathematically porved that black holes exist, thus certifying several singularity theories he and other authors had lain out in "Black Holes and Baby Universes"

On the other hand, Al Gore did not win a nobel price for any climatology work, but the nobel peace prize "...for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change...", i.e. making a movie. What's wrong with that?
Correct, but if the knowledge he is disseminating is false he's no more deserving than I would be if I stood atop a watch tower calling out that the world was flat.
Bazz
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2008
The world is flat here is the proof,

http://www.alaska...iety.htm
Bazz
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
No wait i was wrong, the earth is not flat, its spherical and actually growing.here is some proof.

http://www.youtub...idAICoQI

http://www.earth-...122/1152

But there are still people who try to prove its not a sphere, they are clearly wrong and just suppressing the truth.

http://www.person...rth.html

Its from Northwestern University, follow the money and you know they are suppressing growing earth.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2008
But there are still people who try to prove its not a sphere, they are clearly wrong and just suppressing the truth.


Who told you the Earth is a sphere?? It's pear shaped.