global warming or a new ice age?

Post Reply New Topic

Generally most scientific journals are available online, although you'd need to be at some institution like a university to get free personal access to most. That's where the research is published, and so I'd argue that although in an ideal world access would be free to everyone, to all intents and purposes it's available to the people who benefit from it most.


Well, this seems to be exactly what you're doing (although I can't completely rule-out the possibility that you are doing that deliberately to make a point). You've selected little snippets of information from various souces and stitched them together to support your argument, whilst ignoring everything else. For example:


So, where does all the ice go? We can assume that in that scenario there'd be none left on Greenland either. You'd have vast flooding of continental areas; maybe even new shallow-seas formed in some areas. This would take a long time to happen, obviously, but you'd be left with a completely different world with a new distribution of environments with absolutely no guarantee that you'd be getting a net benefit at the end. This is the kind of world that existed back in the Cretaceous when Antarctica did provide a reasonably benign climate, although the continental configuration was slightly different, and the atmospheric CO2 levels were higher.

25.000 to 30,000 years ago sea level was seven meters higher. Now that is the threat, that is what will happen when the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt.

The oceans rise .3 meter a hundred years, and the scare story is a meter next hundred years, but 1.5 is the rate over time.

The Sahara was a rich grassland, till 8,000 years ago, and the drying went all through the middle east, Caspien Basin, and the Gobi.

The American west, Australia and southern Africa are suffering long term drought. A larger and less salty ocean could be good.

The worst of the projections for global warming are within normal climate over time, and not nearly as fast as it has happened in the past.

So people who built a beachfront house on sand dunes will lose, but where did they think the sand dunes came from?

When the ice last melted it left an outwash plain of sand, gravel, rock down the Mississippi valley, and a fan reaching from Mobile to Brownville, it is called The Drift. It is 125 foot down now, and covered in the Beaumont Clay series, which rising sea level backed up the Mississippi and built a delta.

Most of Louisiana and southern Texas was open water but the delta grew faster than sea level rose.

25,000 years ago the Gulf reached Saint Lewis, and the Amazon Basin was a huge inland sea.

18,000 years ago the Gulf started several hundred miles off shore. It stayed there till 13,000 years ago. The Bahamas stood 150 meters above sea level. There is a huge island in the Lessor Antillies that was above the surface only a few thousand years ago.

There is no point in any of this that can be claimed to be the correct sea level.

In the Oddsey the Greeks write about going to Lake Triton, the home of the God who ruled the seas, and they navigate well. According to their detractors, they claimed to have sailed into the Sahara.

They did, for in Southern Tunisia there is a large salt flat, and to the west, a depression in Algeria, which is some 30 meters below sea level. They wrote of sailing through a passage in a sea of reeds, rich in every fish, then coming to Lake Triton, his cities, with endless dates, grain, fruits, and wealth.

Until it was filled with wind blown sand, this passage did exist, till several thousand years ago, and several governments have proposed opening it again. The evaporation of water caused rain to fall on the backside of the Atlas Mountains, and rivers ran south into the desert. They were major trade routes. This caused a cooling of one of the hottest places on earth.

Since it closed, Lake Chad to the south has been shrinking, and there was a large lake in Egypt south of Siwa. There is another depression north of there, that was once an arm of the sea. Cleaning out these two, large but possible projects, would bring cooling to the Sahara, and water to stop the spread of the Sahal south.

The best way to fight global warming is global cooling. The evaporation of cubic kilometers of sea water will do that, using natural heat to distill water. 543 calories per gram? When water evaporates. Cubic kilometers a day adds up. It will also form estuaries that are needed.

Cooling, the summer heat waves going north are killing thousands in Europe, more fresh water, salt does not migrate far through the land, but pure water does, rain, more food, just from the morning dew near the water, the Baal Lands that are fertile near the sea without rain.

In the winter, when cold winds come from the north, rain will fall where Africa needs it.

The Copenhagen Cabal just thinks of ways to tax, fund more governent to tax more, but have no real projects.

This one is a provable heat sink that has many other benefits. Once started it will run for thousands of years.

Slowing Global Warming is accepting heat buildup. There are natural ways to directly consume heat.

Heat at one temperature will flow to a body at a lower temperature. When there are few or no gradients in the ambient temperature in a volume, little or no mechanical work can be derived to "consume" the heat. Heat is energy and it is neither created nor destroyed. It is just redistributed.

Review the three laws of thermodynamics.

ruveyn

Any accurate model of climate needs to be able to take into account a great number of different things, each of which may be easy to understand individually - using real climate science - but which are very hard to integrate into a predictive whole and which, as you say, can only be as accurate as the information we use. Worse, to the extent that humans figure into any equation (and never mind industrialisation - as a species we've deforested huge areas over thousands of years and radically changed the flora and fauna of just about everywhere we've been) things become unpredictable with any degree of confidence.



Really? An old (and much more scientifically capable) friend of mine from university is a climate scientist. He's always seemed an entirely reputable sort and not the type to con me, or anyone else. I shall have to ask him how he was convinced to join the cabal.

On a broader scale, though, I do agree with the viewpoint that as the Earth has been through such major changes in temperature and sea-level we ought to get used to the idea that the climate changes, naturally, a lot. The problem is whether the speed and pattern of changes we are seeing now are unusual, and if they are, if there is anything we can do to temper them; but regardless of the cause of change we need to be able to defeat the effects.



It isn't, but if it comes at the expense of presently green and lush places becoming desert the trade-off looks less useful. We're in a pretty good place at the moment, relatively speaking, there's more available good land than Earth "usually" has.

The papers are but in this particular branch of science, somehow when they make adjustments to raw data, or when they only select part of the raw data to use, they don't always disclose or explain the action. Peer review is supposed to catch this type of problem, but it apparently failed miserably since such papers still get published. And when requested to provide the missing raw data and computer code, again somehow they can stall it for months. It of course beg the question: how was the peer review done in the first place?

So no, climate science isn't open at all.

That is a major, major violation of scientific protocol. All kosher publication is supposed to be available to anyone with the skill to read it (barring classified defense stuff of course).

ruveyn

I wouldn't say most scientific journals are available online, I'd say some are available online. Also in other disciplines.

Yah, it's frustrating that most of the time when searching for research on any topic, I get pages and pages of abstracts and no way to access the actual reports.

I have, and Swamp Coolers, evaporating water consumes heat, the resulting moister air is much cooler.

The natural forces of dry hot air and wind need only a water supply. Hot humid air rises and cools, the result is rain.

Rising sea level is transporting heat, using places where rising sea can be turned to vapor check a few problems, and Death Valley could add more to the wests water supply than the big dams.

Anything that converts salt to fresh is good, and we will never run out of sea water.

It's only problem is, it is cheap, and it cannot be taxed.

Anything can be taxed. Michael Faraday was once asked by the Prime Minister of England of what was electricity. Faraday replied: One day you will tax it.

ruveyn

I said:

I made an assumption there, in that in my experience for the subject I studied recently most (>50%) were available online because the university paid for access to various online publishing services. Some of the older publications were available, too, as those were being scanned. It would seem reasonable to assume this situation extends across most scientific disciplines.

The whole climate-change argument draws on a range of research from different disciplines. You are citing one example which has been, from what I can see, grossly misrepresented in order to discredit a massive amount of unconnected work. And you seem to completely miss the fact that even if there is no clear measured warming trend, that doesn't mean that there will not be warming and other problems (like ocean acidification) as we are clearly adding CO2 to the atmosphere in significant quantities through burning fossil fuels, and there is a know mechanism by which that warming can occur.

I don't follow you logic. Have more than one group of authors of climate related papers resisted to provide the data and computer models that their papers dependent on? Yes. Then how can anyone review their papers? And what's the point dragging in "research from different disciplines"? And when did I "grossly misrepresented in order to discredit a massive amount of unconnected work"?


I haven't miss it, this means AGW is unproven! On the other hand, you seem to want the burden of proof to lie solely on those who are against AGW.


Yeah, but there are clearly holes in the current understanding of that mechanism since CO2 have continued to raise in the past decade but temperature have been largely stable.


There are a lot of other things we shouldn't dump into the ocean. I would rather the world put its effect into these real pollution issue rather than CO2.

OK.

... I don't know numbers on that. ... I would like to know the percentages of open access online publications, paid access online publications and not-online (printed only) publications...

I think you're looking at this too simplistically. Even if temperatures were relatively stable over a decade, any warming caused by human activity is superimposed on trends that occur naturally. In other words, to take it to the other extreme, you could get short-term cooling but because of our input that cooling may be less than otherwise would occur. But that would also mean that warmer times in any natural cycle would see temperatures higher than usual. It's a complicated system, and getting complete proof is impossible. To suggest we need it shows your overall ignorance of what we're discussing and of basic risk management. The long and short of it is that science has identified a potential threat, although there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the magnitude of that threat. It is possible, however, to present worst and best case scenarios. It's up to politicians to then decide what they'll do about it. If you don't like that then blame the politicians, not the science.


As you weren't explicit in that last post with regard to the situation referred to, I assumed you were commenting on the recent happenings at the university of East Anglia. My quote above refers to that, how that's been portrayed by the media, and the context within which you appeared to be using it in your post. I referred to other disciplines as you seemed to imply by use of "in this particular branch of science" that this area of study was somehow separate and subject to different standards.

The Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River has been growing for decades, it reaches Texas, and kills everything. That is just the part the winds push back along the coast, most goes farther out, deeper, and does just as much damage.

Acid, Oxygen starved, and 900 times as dense as air.

The Weatherman is mostly wrong, and has a Degree in Climate.

The Climate Department has produced many Degrees in Global Warming, who all agree, the field should be funded because there are few Weatherman jobs.

Since no climate models have ever worked, short or long term, and The National Weather Service gives away the best data, they now seek to Regulate the Weather, by Regulating the people who they claim produce the weather.

It would take a NAWP, National Association of Weather Professionals with a budget equal to NASA, to employ the mis educated products of Degree Programs.

We do have a National Atmospheric and Oceanigraphic that is fuly staffed, and does nothing we can tell.

For all we spend, in what applications there are, mostly rainfall and crop yields, they are just as wrong as the local TV weatherman.

Twenty-five years ago we were sold Pollution, How we had to fund the cleanup of Superfund Sites, which were produced by private industry, we have a massive staff at work at great expense, but very few sites have been cleaned up.

Love Canal is still there, the homes were bought, fences built, and watchmen hired. I imagine they will be there forever. The Mississippi Dead Zone is still there, Corporate Farming still dumps in the river, as do all the cities and towns along it's banks.

So now comes the Warm Panic Attack, "It will get warmer!"

By all the projects that can be measured, nothing got done, lots of money was spent, and we supported a generation of Government Scientists, who did and do nothing.

Every ton of carbon regulated in the US will move to China, India, Mexico.

All of the workplace regulations should come with travel folders.

So before we believe Global Warming, do something about Love Canal, The Mississippi, the Dead Zone, and other projects we have paid for.

The real problem is the Universities who continue coming up with Degree Programs that have no jobs.

Now that we are in a downturn that might last a few generations, these dreams of people who have never been in the world, they taught, about how a group of educated students could go forth and regulate the weather through taking control of all industry, and people, and making the lab coat the uniform of the Master Race, will have to be put aside.

The under 25 have 50% employment, in the ones who are looking for work, plus lots still hiding in school, and there are less jobs, we just lost 15 million, and in good times add 2 million a year. Regulating the last jobs out of the country will get you lynched.

From the title of the post, all of the signs do point just as strongly to a new ice age.

The main claim of Global Warming is the Arctic is warming, it is, that the ice is melting, it is, which is fresh water that floats on salt. That is the water that will flow out, and the salt below it is very cold. When it rises to the surface, that is the trigger for an ice age.

Warming happens slowly, ice ages in a year, it just starts snowing, and never stops. All of the conditions are right. Warm oceans, barren rock exposed in the north, and when the cold and salty Arctic rises to the surface, one very cold winter starts the conveyor, The Gulf Stream, warm and moist air moving over deep frozen north Europe, the new winter wonderland. A meter a week falls for a few months, and it is over. The Copenhagen Ice Sheet.

It grows till it reaches the Urals.