Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Current Events Current Events
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > > >

global warming - the science perspective


(!)

Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
06-Jan-2010, 10:11 AM #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
.............................

Remember, this is a science thread; basically anything that can be debated using verifiable scientific evidence is welcome..........................

Just scientific facts and where we think it will lead us

...............................
................................ Just remember, keep it scientific; if you need to paste cartoons to make your point, please do it in the other thread. I fully intend to keep this on the scientific track and I also fully intend to be able to learn from this thread, and i hope it serves to educate others.

Peace.

v


Just posting elements of valis's opening post as a reminder of the purpose of this thread.
valis's Avatar
Moderator with 63,521 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: as above
06-Jan-2010, 10:13 AM #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
Perhaps we can nail down the main alleged culprits and try and search out relevant science for each factor.
sounds good to me.

Quote:
Global Warming: myth or fact? Loads of evidence suggests the earth is not undergoing significant warming: other than a typical cycle change, as has happened endless times since the ecological system as we know it formed and stabilised millions of years ago.
and i can find equal amounts of evidence that the co2 buildup is far more rapid than in those times. Mind you, i'm not arguing against the cyclical nature of the earth's climate; the earth's precession naturally dictates that. What I am stating, however, is that we are dumping huge amounts, far more amounts than the carbon sinks can hold, of co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Therein lies the issue. We've just been through a solar period equal to the Maunder Minimum, and things actually got hotter, as opposed to the opposite, which was supposed to happen.
Quote:
Oceanic Level Rise: again, fact or myth? Seems much myth here once more.
And yet we have people harvesting shrimp where a few years ago they were harvesting rice. I'd say that's rather indicative of sea-level rise.

Quote:
Polar Icecap Melt: once more, seems cyclical and as I pointed out previously, there are endless potential causes and permutations of causes.
Very true. Endless causes, permutations, fluctuations, who knows. One thing I do know, however, is that the Greenland ice cap is melting faster than ever before, and continues to accelerate in it's melting. Something to ponder.
Quote:
Greenhouse Effect: same comment.
okie doke.

Quote:
Carbon Effect: bearing in mind the Earth's atmosphere has experienced far higher levels of atmospheric carbon over recent time (i.e. since circa 2 million years ago) is the current alleged rise man made or the result of other natural changes?
I would say man-made. We've only contributed ~4%, but again, that's easily enough to impact a large-scale, complex organism such as the global ecology. And it's self-perpetuating; tundra gets exposed, methane gets released. Oceans get overloaded on co2, can't take anymore, bounce it back to the atmosphere.

That's where the problem lies.

Quote:
Man's puny endeavors at "Carbon Capture" may well cause other much more severe reactions, unthought of and unconsidered thus far.
not sure what you mean here. You mean stuff like the algae co2 eaters?

Quote:
In time relative terms of reference, Homo Sapiens has only been wandering over the globe for a tiny proportion of time.
agreed. and the time I'm referencing is FAR less than the 250k we've been roaming about; I'm talking only about the last 160 years or so.

Quote:
My own view is that man will suffer self-extinction by failing to control explosive population growth: and old Mother Earth will simply shrug her sturdy shoulders and regorup, re-building the planet's ecosystem over millions of years after the last homo sapiens have expired.
pretty much agree wtih that one.

Quote:
That time's a long way hence however!
Y5B, baby.......
__________________
Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows IT Professional | M.C.S.A. | M.C.P. - MS Server 2k3 | blog | rate me

"Ask Bill why the string in function 9 is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can't answer. Only I know that". - Gary Kildall
valis's Avatar
Moderator with 63,521 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: as above
06-Jan-2010, 10:19 AM #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooBad View Post
Exactly!

Sorry Valis, there is much real science to be done, but most to date has been skewed by politics to provide "evidence" of an already come to conclusion. Since those involved admitted that they destroyed the original data, can that be reconstituted to allow real science to have a go at it?

I am a proponent of continued scientific experiment, but only with the true scientific method as the basis. That is there is no such thing as "consensus" in science. Everything must be able to be repeatably proved with all data, variables and methods open to questioning. That has not happened in the "global warming/climate change" debate to date. Remember, everyone had a consensus that Stephen Hawking was correct in his theory, until that is, Stephen Hawking proved himself wrong. Be very careful of believing that science has all the answers. Many people have a very distorted view of the infallibility of science, but science is run by fallible humans.
Nope. science is science. If you think that 2+2=5, then your interpretation of science is incorrect, not the math itself.

As for the skewed data thing, this is one of the reasons I started this thread; to get all that crap out of the system. Here, in this thread, in the now, we are discussing amongst ourselves the science behind global warming. We don't need Hadley et al; we need only the facts that are out there at our fingertips and the brains that god gave us to formulate our own scientific explanation for what is going on, and what may happen.

Politics has no place in this thread. This is a thread for education, for us to learn and share ideas with one another, NOT for copy and paste articles from dingbat politicos in suits.

Which is why I stated I will categorically delete those posts that are not relevant to the science of the global warming, and what YOUR scientific stance on it is..........

hth,

v
Paquadez's Avatar
Member with 8,713 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London UK
06-Jan-2010, 11:10 AM #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner View Post
The last two posts sound like rationale to quit discussing the science of climatology and global warming.

What? Demanding tight true science rather than anecdote, much repeated myth and urban legend culled from blogs?

OK: now I realise this goes against normal TSG Custom and Practice (), however, if, for once just once, this thread is to go anywhere (Other than round and round in circles until we finish up with the sort of dumb utterence from quasi-literate rednecks which always seem to include the word "Commie" ), then we must debate and discuss only around the science.

Dividing the alleged causal factors into disparate headings allows separate discussion. investigation and research: rather than try and mash them all into one catch all clumsy head and confusing descriptor such as "Climate Change".

So let's now have some Due Diligence.

Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
06-Jan-2010, 12:13 PM #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
What? Demanding tight true science rather than anecdote, much repeated myth and urban legend culled from blogs?

OK: now I realise this goes against normal TSG Custom and Practice (), however, if, for once just once, this thread is to go anywhere (Other than round and round in circles until we finish up with the sort of dumb utterence from quasi-literate rednecks which always seem to include the word "Commie" ), then we must debate and discuss only around the science.

Dividing the alleged causal factors into disparate headings allows separate discussion. investigation and research: rather than try and mash them all into one catch all clumsy head and confusing descriptor such as "Climate Change".

So let's now have some Due Diligence.


Quote:
then we must debate and discuss only around the science.
Indeed....your earlier post didn't seem to have that appearance.....more of discouragement than support.
Gabriel's Avatar
Gabriel has a Photo Album
Computer Specs
Account Closed with 17,353 posts.
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home sweet home
Experience: Can Follow Directions
06-Jan-2010, 12:16 PM #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
In time relative terms of reference, Homo Sapiens has only been wandering over the globe for a tiny proportion of time.
Yes, and some are curious as to what is going on around them. Even that some over indulgent in the imagination part, like myself, attempt to put meaning to things unable to be accessed fully enough to truly cogitate or understand. I cringe to think what boredom I would die of without wanting to know even the misconceptions of reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
My own view is that man will suffer self-extinction by failing to control explosive population growth: and old Mother Earth will simply shrug her sturdy shoulders and regorup, re-building the planet's ecosystem over millions of years after the last homo sapiens have expired..
That sounds fascinating to me. I guess our feeling that we want to control the scenario is like kicking and screaming on the way out. Or maybe arrogant insanity. I see nothing incorrect about exiting that way, on a personal level or as an unorganized mass of life forms. I rather enjoy the thrill of futility. This little bundle of atoms decided a long time ago that no matter how dispairing the view, or disuasive others arguments were, it was not going to become an absolute that set my own boundaries, as small and insignificant as they be. Not until the end that is


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
And the eco-process will continue with changes and evolve, until the Sun's fusion reaction winds down and Earth becomes like others, a frozen planet...
It's amazing that we will be absorbed. Though the scenario seems sterile, there is a beauty about it all. Like we will be here and gone in one breath of the whole....anyway, enough of my infantile meanderings about the demise. I am here now and demand much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez View Post
That time's a long way hence however!
pyritechips's Avatar
pyritechips   (Jim) pyritechips is offline
pyritechips has a Photo Album
Computer Specs
Member with 26,330 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Experience: Intermediate
06-Jan-2010, 07:31 PM #37
I think valis' determination as per this thread is crystal clear and definitely not opinion, so let's keep true to his path. If you want to discuss the politics keep it in the other thread.
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,155 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
06-Jan-2010, 08:40 PM #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
...........And yet we have people harvesting shrimp where a few years ago they were harvesting rice. I'd say that's rather indicative of sea-level rise............
I keep seeing this repeated (not necessarily by you) and I think it requires some clarification/correction, especially if it pertains to Bangladesh, the most cited case, probably because it is the most typical.

Bangla.... is chronically short of hard (foreign) currency so their take is:
Quote:
Shrimp farming will be good for the local people because growing rice in an acre of paddy gives returns of about US $50 while shrimp fetches US $650
more

Prior to this they were one of the world's biggest exporters of frog legs. Again for the reason of gaining hard currency and again they decided it made rice production expendable. Until they discovered that there wasn't anything about anymore to eat the mosquitos and flies (of which they encountered a plague) and that it cost more to buy and distribute insecticides than the frog legs exports got them. Consequently exports of frogs are now banned. To the chagrin of the other frogs.

None of this being designed to refute sea level rising.

There is also this covering at length the salination of agricultural lands of Bangladesh due to rising sea levels and I thought at first I'd have to modify it somewhat until I saw they'd justly addressed:
Quote:
Another factor is the sharp rise in shrimp cultivation, which has created permanent saline water-logging in the region.

Shrimp, which need sea water to grow, are a significant foreign-exchange earner and farmers have taken to building high mud walls around their farms to retain the saline sea water of the high tide. Over the past three decades, thousands of shrimp farms have sprung up in the region.
Followed by what I did not know:
Quote:
Third, fresh water flow has dropped off significantly in the Padma (Bangladesh branch of the Ganges) since India commissioned the Farakka Barrage upstream. During the dry season (December-June) the Padma flows at less than a quarter of its capacity.

Finally, Panaullah said the stagnant saline water on the surface often seeps into the groundwater - rendering it useless for either irrigation or drinking purposes.
Again not supplied in rebuttal but to keep debate clean (we all agree it ain't all black and white and there are "man mades" outside of CO2).

P.S. rice paddies (if maintained) also have the tendency to keep the land.
__________________
Human affairs are not so happily arranged that the best things please the most men. Therefore it is often the sign of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob. ----Seneca----
valis's Avatar
Moderator with 63,521 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: as above
06-Jan-2010, 08:55 PM #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
Followed by what I did not know:
neither did I.

that's the whole point of this thread. To open our collective eyes (those that wish to be opened, of course) and share ideas and views on the hard science of global warming.

That is EXACTLY what I am looking for.
valis's Avatar
Moderator with 63,521 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: as above
06-Jan-2010, 08:59 PM #40
trs, there is no scientific point to your post above, so I'm going to move it to the other GW thread.

As I've stated, this thread is solely to explore the science behind and the ramifications of global warming.

Lord knows you got the brain power, let's see if you got the focus.

Thanks,

v
bill.aam's Avatar
Member with 7,218 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Florida
Experience: Advanced
07-Jan-2010, 01:44 AM #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis
...........And yet we have people harvesting shrimp where a few years ago they were harvesting rice. I'd say that's rather indicative of sea-level rise............

I keep seeing this repeated (not necessarily by you) and I think it requires some clarification/correction, especially if it pertains to Bangladesh, the most cited case, probably because it is the most typical.

Bangla.........................................
This was addressed/posted and IMO, it was basically ignored back in April. I don't believe it will be any different now. IMO, the facts will be ignored once again.

The following is from the article SHRIMP FARMING IN THAILAND’S {{{PDF}}} originally posted by Dzurlord

Quote:
........Rice farmers in areas further upstream also soon realized that the high profits derived from shrimp production could easily offset costs associated with trucking salt water to their farms. Development opportunities were limited only by basic site suitability criteria (relatively flat land and a reliable source of water), salt water transportation expenses, and land leasing or purchase costs (Szuster et al., 2003). This facilitated a second shrimp boom within completely freshwater rice growing areas of the Chao Phraya Delta (e.g., Nakhon Pathom and Suphanburi) and farms could be found as far as 200 kilometers upstream from the Gulf of Thailand by 1998 (Committee on Inland Shrimp Farming, 1998).

April 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
again.

tell this to the people who are now harvesting shrimp where they used to harvest rice.

Everything looks great on paper Mike, but if you stick your head out the window it sort of tells a different story.
Post 1297

Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
nothing. But the fact that rice doesn't grow in saltwater, and shrimp do, should tell you something.
Post 1299


Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster View Post
Isolated, local, and ther water rises and falls naturally.
Besides, the farmers probably make more wages on shrimp than rice.

bullsquat and you know it. They've been harvesting rice there for a thousand generations, you dink. Know all of a sudden they are harvesting shrimp?
Post 1304

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzurlord View Post
This link has a report done about the life cycle of the shrimp industry in Thailand.
I don't know anything about the author.

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Assessment...ya/szuster.pdf

skimming over the article I did not see any reference to rising sea leve due to GW. might have missed it, but i think the report points mostly to economic reasons.
Post 1302

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill.aam View Post
From the article post by Dzurlord



It would seem that the shift from rice to shrimp was done for economic reasons or greed...

It also talks of a 2nd shrimp boom, as high profits offset the cost of trucking saltwater into what had been completely freshwater rice growing areas.
Post 1306

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffoon View Post
Not a good example, Tim. The doings behind Bangladesh shrimps are far more complex.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ts/4270657.stm

They actually destroyed wet lands to make room for salty ponds.

Not questioning rising sea level but the Delta there is always flooded thruout known history. Monsoon does it every time and in some years even more badly, when the cyclones hit. Flat as a pancake there.
Post 1311

Last edited by bill.aam; 07-Jan-2010 at 01:53 AM..
buffoon's Avatar
Community Moderator with 19,155 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Experience: comfortably numb
07-Jan-2010, 04:11 AM #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill.aam View Post
This was addressed/posted and IMO, it was basically ignored back in April. I don't believe it will be any different now. IMO, the facts will be ignored once again.

The following is from the article SHRIMP FARMING IN THAILANDíS {{{PDF}}} originally posted by Dzurlord




April 2009

Post 1297


Post 1299



Post 1304



Post 1302



Post 1306



Post 1311
It goes to show that human influence of a different nature from emission makes the Bengal coast in general and the Sunderbans delta in particular to be difficult candidates for the demonstration of (current) sea level rising.

Apart from the factors already named interfering heavily with such endeavors the country is also very flat and low lying and perpetually subjected to the effects of cyclones.

One has the same problem with some of the Indian ocean islands (e.g. Maldivs) where one can see the rise with the naked eye. What one can also see is that it was once popular to demolish underwater coral reefs and grind them into sand substitute for the building industry.

From what I can garner the current sea level is some few mm above X (???) and what is causing concern is the projection of what sea levels will be.
Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
07-Jan-2010, 06:01 AM #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill.aam View Post
This was addressed/posted and IMO, it was basically ignored back in April. I don't believe it will be any different now. IMO, the facts will be ignored once again.

The following is from the article SHRIMP FARMING IN THAILANDíS {{{PDF}}} originally posted by Dzurlord




April 2009

Post 1297


Post 1299



Post 1304



Post 1302



Post 1306



Post 1311
What is it you are trying to imply?
That shrimp farming somehow negated an accepted fact concerning ocean levels?
valis's Avatar
Moderator with 63,521 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: as above
07-Jan-2010, 09:24 AM #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill.aam View Post
This was addressed/posted and IMO, it was basically ignored back in April. I don't believe it will be any different now. IMO, the facts will be ignored once again.
I can state this much unequivocally. The facts, in this thread, will not be ignored. Rampant conjecture, opinionated spin, and posts that have nothing to do with the immediate science regarding global warming and it's myriad possible outcomes will be shunted off to the other thread, as was TRS's.

Again, this is a roundtable session, something that we should all be able to take something from.

hth,

v
Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
08-Jan-2010, 11:05 AM #45
Interesting article "Echinoderms contribute to global carbon sink "

http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...nk_146170.html
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑