Triumphrat

HiDesert · 03-12-2008

This is a good example of why I'm skeptical about global climate models. You can play with models however you like, but you are bounded by what you already know about the underlying processes. In the case of the ecosystem and planetary climate, that's far too little to lead a reasonable observer to conclude that we can even predict the summer after next, much less the next hundred years or why the projected changes are happening. Repeated failures to predict the severity of the (then) upcoming hurricane season or summer heat/humidity reinforce this view to me.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0311131851.htm

For those of you who don't care to click, this article explains that microorganisms found in large, iron-poor areas of the ocean can apparently use a type of photosynthesis that involved no net release of oxygen or uptake of CO2.

I've added the underlining below:
"The low nutrient, low iron environments account for about half of the area of the world's oceans, so they represent a large portion of the Earth's surface available for photosynthesis," says Mackey. "Our findings show that this novel cycle occurs in two major ocean basins and suggest that a substantial amount of energy from sunlight gets re-routed away from carbon fixation during photosynthesis. This may mean that less carbon dioxide is being removed from the atmosphere by the open ocean photosynthetic organisms than was previously believed."

mistermellow001 · 03-12-2008

I am so not qualified to jump into this, but while I'm waiting for my meeting I'll just say that I'm also skeptical of modelling global scale phenomena. The uncertainty increases right along with the variables. I'm also skeptical of conclusions drawn from research data in isolation of the aggregate body of previous work (not an attack on you or your link). Thomas Kuhn would roll over in his grave when I offer that I believe science is, on the whole, cummulative. Not to say that breakthroughs haven't changed the dominant paradigm because they have. I just prefer to invoke the "precautionary principle" until there's enough data to go back to Condition Yellow.

That probably didn't make a lick of sense.

Tbirdnz · 03-12-2008

Well I understood that Mr M and I'm going to use it in future, normally I just look out of the window to see if it's ok for a ride but now I going to invoke the reverse dominant paradigm, i.e. stick my little toe out instead to see whether it gets sunburnt or wet as a precaution.

--------------
Ride on !

KingBear · 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermellow001

I am so not qualified to jump into this...

Which means you are as much an expert as anyone here, so dive right in!

I am very much of hidesert's mind on this - way too many "experts" have climbed onto the global warming bandwagon while there is still a lot of dialogue yet to take place. I'll go farther by saying I'm willing to put the year 2014 as the over/under for year this whole man-made global warming thing is exposed as a scam and a fraud. But that's just me.

In the meantime skyrocketing oil prices will push us to utilize more efficient energy resources, which will be better for us and better for the environment. So in the end we'll have OPEC to thank for cleaner air, not Al Gore.

That's what you call "ironic."

KingBear · 03-14-2008

This just in today...

Quote:

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Read the whole story here...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

HiDesert · 03-14-2008

I read that too. I agree with his point, but could hardly disagree more with his chosen method. I think you could make an excellent point that carbon credits are fraud, but to think that you'd get a valid, debate-ending scientific judgment from a courtroom is idiotic. I doubt any court verdict has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

And I don't want the debate ended. I just want the arm-twisting ended unless we get to the point that the science is good enough and indicates that we should literally try and do something about the weather. Scientific debate is how we'll get to the point that we can accurately model the climate. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but trying to stop the debate is the wrong thing to do. Unless you make it very clear that you're only trying to stop the political debate, which contributes nothing of scientific value and just gets people's knickers in a twist.

tba-golfer · 03-14-2008

Quoth hidesert:

"You can play with models however you want...."

Cheryl Tiegs, please!

Silverado57 · 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingBear

Which means you are as much an expert as anyone here, so dive right in!

I am very much of hidesert's mind on this - way too many "experts" have climbed onto the global warming bandwagon while there is still a lot of dialogue yet to take place. I'll go farther by saying I'm willing to put the year 2014 as the over/under for year this whole man-made global warming thing is exposed as a scam and a fraud. But that's just me.

In the meantime skyrocketing oil prices will push us to utilize more efficient energy resources, which will be better for us and better for the environment. So in the end we'll have OPEC to thank for cleaner air, not Al Gore.

That's what you call "ironic."

Well-said Barry & Hidesert.
Also, I was wondering how many GW conferences were held in New England this winter.

MVP44 · 03-14-2008

Interesting article. For how long have we been "completely" certain about the inner workings of Photosynthesis - a process without question effects our earth on a very macro level.

Now apparently we see the process altered to better suit the environment.

Doesn't negate our previous knowledge, but certainly encourages us to expand that bubble of thought so many thought was iron clad.

Healthy skepticism, debate and reason are all part of the greater process. Those who scare me the most are those whose paradigms are so rigidly molded as to not allow even the slightest degree of flexibility.

I am all for global warming - we just had our best winter ever in MD, ever being in my short memory. Let tropical weather come to me - why move. While I haven't planted my palm trees yet, I'm hoping.

So many natural phenomena are cyclical why should avg temps not also be found to follow along these lines. The problem, as others have stated, is the relatively limited hard historical data to support such wide spread claims of fact regarding such macroscopic environmental impacts.

I think we homosapians often have such an over inflated view of our capabilities(both negative and positive) that we fail to recognize that in the larger biological picture we may not be the profound alterers of natural law we deem ourselves to be.

rndtaylor · 03-14-2008

I just ordered this t-shirt.

I will wear it with pride to bennington.

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/prod...=&is_fivestar=