SkepticLance

Edtharan You are correct about people on both sides of the GW story exaggerating. I try hard to be realistic. And I have not said that a colder than normal southern winter is evidence against GW. If we stick to the facts, they are that the average world temperature increases by 0.16 Celsius per decade as long term trend since 1976, and that sea level rises by 2 mm per year, also long term trend. Anything that suggests major increases over and above these facts is exaggeration. Also anything that denies it is happening. I do neither. I stick to the facts.

Edtharan said : I am not just "following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith." That sounds a bit like an attempted Ad Hominin at me. Sorry. That was not meant as a personal attack. I am just trying to say that a particular type of 'logic' is not good science. From your posts, you seem to think that because one region of the Earth was colder, then the Earth can not be warming up. I have never said that. We all know that the world is warming up. What I am trying to do, is attack the unjustified exaggerations surrounding this topic.

silverslith Several problems with your logic. Sorry. First : the cold period in the south began long before the beginnings of our present El Nino. Second : the pattern is, in fact, significantly different to the last (1998) El Nino. Even though that El Nino was far more powerful, the cold effects did not happen then. The current pattern is quite different to 1998.

Silverslith said Anyway, we should use geothermal and tidal power to turn the atmospheric carbon into useful hi performance building materials. build a ring and space elevators to speed the release of life spores into space. The yolk is almost consumed. if life does not hatch from the earth then venus is what we can expect for a habitat eventually. Just a couple of points to, perhaps, put your comments onto a more practical footing. First; geothermal and tidal power combined contributes less than 0.5% of the world's electricity needs, in spite of many decades of development. They are unliely to make a more than token contribution in the future, since the problems of today will continue. Wind power, which is the darling of the greens, contributes less than 2%, in spite of whole forests of wind turbine towers sprouting in places like Germany (and incredibly ugly they are, too). They are seriously unlikely ever to contribute more than about 5%. Their growth is driven by dogma, and the fact that electricity companies use them as public relations tools - "See, we are green too!" There are still only four methods than contribute substantially. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear. Coal and gas have emission problems. Hydroelectric is almost at its potential maximum. Only nuclear has potential for major expansion. By the time we get to the stage you see as so desirable (space elevators etc), we will also have nuclear fusion.

Edtharan said : The icebergs off the coast of New Zealand could have many different causes. It could be caused by the Earth cooling down, or it could be caused by the Earth heating up. And the true cause is a colder than normal winter. Edtharan, your insistance that anything not quite average must be a consequence of global warming is just another example of someone following a pseudoreligion and believing it must be so out of religious faith. "It's all global warming...duh!" In the 1960's my father was a farmer. He believed absolutely implicitly that American atmospheric nuclear testing (AANT) was the cause of any abnormal weather we had at the time. Yet there was no scientific evidence for that, and the end of AANT did not stop abnormal weather. Get this clear in your head. Abnormal weather from time to time is normal. Your rather long winded argument about carbon dioxide and warming is a bit pointless, if it was directed at me. I have already agreed that the world is warming, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a major cause.

Edtharan said : Earth was in equilibrium before humans started producing a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Actually, the Earth has never been in thermal equilibrium. If you look at a graph of temperature change over the past million years (or any time scale, really) you will see temperature going up and down like a yo yo. What seems to be happening is there are more, and larger swings in the climate. And this is what is the expected results of global warming. These statements annoy me. It seems that any variation on what people consider to be 'normal' weather is ascribed to global warming and is the fault of humans. I think that is bulldust. Iceburgs drifting off the New Zealand coastline, for the first time since 1931, has NOTHING to do with global warming. It is a result of a very cold winter, meaning the sea was cold and did not melt the iceburgs, as it usually does. Strong variations in temperature from one year to the next have always occurred, as far back as human records go.

Trigger New Scientist journal has been reporting on that for a while, and saying that measurements indicate it has already started. Then, suddenly we find out they were wrong. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5802/1064a?etoc If what Science reports is correct, there is no current indication, beyond theory, of that phenomenon.

Bascule. Check it out on your map. At least 75% of the Southern Hemisphere is more than 100 km from a station.

bascule. This is not an argument against global warming, but you should add into your 'trend' the fact that this last year, in the southern hemisphere, was the coldest for decades. Here in NZ, we had record snows in June, iceburgs drifting up the coast, the coldest December in 60 years; while in Australia and South Africa, snow fell in places and in seasons where it should not. I suspect the reason your report says 2006 was the sixth hottest globally is simply because the vast majority of temperature records that went into the average came from the northern hemisphere.

In spite of what CAM enthusiasts say, all the major forms have, in fact, been tested scientifically. For example, homeopathy. A report in the Lancet covered double blind clinical trials versus placebo for homeopathic remedies. A total of 111 studies were done, to sufficient scientific rigor to pass peer review. Final conclusion - homeopathy = placebo. If any of these alternative remedies had passed muster, they would now be part of normal orthodox medicine. None did, and none are.

Bascule. We have argued this before. For other readers benefit note that Bascule takes the view that computer climate models are reliable. I say they are not, and have a broad margin of error. I am not sure I want to argue it out again with Bascule, since neither of us are going to give in on this point. Let me just say that everything in science has a certain error factor. Some have a bigger error factor than others. Indirect measures are more likely to be in error than direct measures. Calculation,deduction, and modelling is more likely to be in error than even indirect measurements. If we do not respect these points, we are living in cloud cuckoo land. And that is not science.

Just a bit of information to help put things into perspective. If we take the average global temperature as of, say, the year 1900AD as a baseline, then work from there, then... -Current temperatures are about 0.75 Celsius warmer than baseline. -Warming currently, as average of long term trend, is about 0.16 Celsius per decade. -Maximum global temperature, to the best of my knowledge, was during the Cretaceous, at about 10 Celsius higher than base. -The maximum temperature reached in the Medieval climate maximum (about 1000 AD) is not known. Probably fairly similar to today's temperatures, based on indirect evidence. We have excellent evidence of average global temparature change from about 1880 AD. This is due to the fact that thermometers were widespread since then. However, scientists have to rely on indirect measures before that date (eg. Tree ring data, isotope ratios etc). Thus a very much larger error factor applies for any time before 1880. For this reason, comparing temperature change after 1880 with temperature change before is fraught with error.

To go back to the original question. Exxon's motives are probably suspect. However, the results are what count. I am familiar with what Professor Patrick Michaels says on this subject. According to him, if a climate scientist is exploring research that does NOT coincide with the prevailing paradigm, that scientist will find it impossible to get funding from the traditional sources, such as government. If a climate scientist wishes to pursue research that might not support that paradigm, then he or she is forced to seek funding from unconventional sources. If they can get research dollars from Exxon, then they will. I think it is healthy for both sides of this issue to be fully explored. Exxon is doubtless a nasty, underhanded, evil, inconscionable multinational (excuse the sarcastic exaggeration). However, if their dollars permit two sides of the story to be explored, I think that is a good thing.

Let me introduce you to the Asshole Principle. It is a law of human nature that 10% of EVERY population is composed of assholes. Asshole is defined as anyone whose behaviour is restrained only by self interest, and the fear of getting caught and punished. ie. they have no conscience. An asshole will do absolutely anything that benefits themselves, if they think they can get away with it. Since 10% of every human population is composed of assholes, that means that 10% of all doctors are assholes also. These doctors will happily prescribe drugs for reasons related to ther own income, regardless of the impact on their patients, if they think they can get away with it. Once you understand the asshole principle, you have an enhanced understanding of how the world works. There is no solution to this problem, but there are ways of reducing the negative impact of all those assholes. The main one is to increase policing of human behaviour, since assholes will modify their actions to avoid getting caught and punished. Perhaps, in this thread, we should talk about how to better police the asshole doctors. However, we also need to remember that 90% are NOT assholes, and will do what is decent, professional and right.

In science, we need to clearly differentiate between data and deduction. The fact that the world is warming, is data. The fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is increasing is data. The conclusion that greenhouse gas increase causes global warming is deduction. This does not, of course, make the deduction wrong. In this case, the deduction is a very strong one, and is almost certainly true. There are other factors possible. Two very strong possibilities are volcanic action and sunspot activity. There is a clear correlation between vulcanism and global cooling. By no coincidence, the 20th Century was one with less than the long term average level of vulcanism. This meant one less influence to counter global warming. Sunspot activity correlates with warming. During the Little Ice Age, sunspot activity was very low. During the 1940 to 1976 cooling event, sunspot activity fell. Today, with strong warming, sunspot activity is at its highest level for 8000 years. However, the world continued to warm at a substantial rate over the last 20 years, and sunspot activity increased only very slightly. That would suggest another influence. The leading candidate is greenhouse gases. I think the case for anthropogenic greenhouse gases being a powerful force pushing global warming is very strong. Not perfect, but strong.

Those who complain about global warming causing heat waves are Northern Hemisphere types. Here in the south, we have the opposite problem. We have come out of the coldest winter in many decades. We had iceburgs drifting off our coast. Something that last happened in 1931. I am not kidding! December, which is officially summer, was the coldest we have experienced for 60 years. Even in Australia, they had snow on the hills in the state of Victoria on Christmas day, which is the height of summer!

Global warming is real, and it is at least partly caused by human activity - greenhouse gases. Having said that, I need to point out that Al Gore is above all else a politician. And he is using his film for political purposes. His facts are seriously questionable, and almost certainly exaggerated. He appears to be using a computer model, known as the Canadian model, which predicted that the 20th Century warming for the United States was 1.5 Celsius (It was, in fact, 0.5 Celsius). This model predicts 5 Celsius for the 21st Century. Could that prediction be 300% exaggerated? Current global average warming is 0.16 Celsius per decade as a long term trend. Over the next 100 years, it may increase, or get less. We just don't know. However, it is worth noting that each century, at least for the last 400 years, there has been at least one period, lasting decades, of global cooling. This is due either to reductions in sunspot activity or to volcanic activity. The last one was 1940 to 1976, where global temperatures dropped 0.2 Celsius. If we apply current warming trends with the probability of a cooling period this century, we get a predicted warming by the year 2100 AD of about 1 Celsius. This is a hell of a lot less than the Al Gore prediction of 5 Celsius!

Question 1. I do not really know the answer. Could be the concentrating of solutes due to water evaporation, or more likely, the fact that the small body of water heats up and loses oxygen. Question 2. Chloroform and ether are taken into the blood via the lungs. Transport from lungs to brain is exceedingly fast - a matter of a very few seconds. The brain is mostly fat, and these are cheicals that dissolve in fat. They are taken up into the fatty tissue of the brain very quickly and have their impact. hence rapid unconsciousness. Question 3. A misleading question. Drowning normally occurs due to a type of gag reflex which is exactly the same whatever the water, and results in unconsciousness and later death from asphyxiation. Complete time to final death is about the same. However, the questioner is assuming the victim inhales water and dies from the effect of water rather than asphyxiation. Fresh water is absorbed into lung tissue due to osmosis and causes local damage from tissue swelling. If the victim is revived, he/she may later succomb due to this damage interfering with normal lung function. This is due to damaged lung tissue 'weeping' fluid into the alveoli. This is less likely with salt water, since it is close to isotonic with body fluids, and the osmosis is less, and occurs in the reverse direction.

jck When we start talking about what existed before the BB, we are really whistling in the wind. No-one knows. I suggested some alternative possibilities, but I do not know. Science is a valid method of studying the universe, and I would dispute strongly your suggestion that it contributes nothing. However, at any one point in time, it has its limitations. I would not try to predict what will be known in, say, 50 years. However, by today's science, we cannot say anything at all about the time before the BB. We cannot even say if there was time before the BB. Currently there is no way we know of to test any of these propositions. Until we can, any speculation is only as good as every other speculation. However, it does no harm to speculate. It is even possible that some speculations may 'strike gold' by coming up with possible ways of testing ideas using real world test methods.

jck Your speculations on this are as good or as bad as anyone elses. The point I am making is that, until we can obtain relevent empirical data, this kind of speculation is just so much hot air. You might consider alternative possibilities also. Space as we know it has its own reality. Perhaps, before the BB, there was an alternate reality which did not include space as we know it. One BB theory is that it came from the collisions of branes. Perhaps there are many universes, and they interact in rare occasions. Perhps we are all talking a load of $#&@ and reality is nothing any of us is able to imagine.

jck When you start looking back to 'before' the Big Bang, then facts are absent and speculation rules. Logic does not work. In science we start with empirical data and work from there, gathering more empirical data as we go. When empirical data is absent, as in 'before' the Big Bang, we are merely p%$ing into the wind. Look at superstring theory. Seems a wonderful idea and spawns a wealth of mathematics. However, until it permits a testable prediction it is only so much pointless speculation.

jck It is common in science for there to be more than one way of looking at something - ie two or more theories. However, as scientists make progress, these tend to shrink and finally collapse into one single 'most probable' model of reality. This has pretty much happened in ideas on gravity. The story is not complete, but there is little chance of Einstein's concept being completely overturned. I am not sure what your theories are, but you should realise that, over the last 100 years, literally dozens of theories of gravitation have been mooted. As testing proceeds they tumble, one by one, leaving Einstein solely triumphant. I would be very surprised if your ideas had not already been mooted and falsified.

jck There are lots of things in the universe that cannot be directly measured. This does not mean they do not exist, or that science cannot study them. We carry out this study through indirect means. Obviously this is less satisfactory than direct measurements. However, a great deal can be picked up from indirect measures. For example, the orbit of Mercury round the sun has long been known to have an anomaly. It does not quite fit the predicted orbit that comes from Newton's ideas on gravity. However, when Einstein completed his theory, it altered the equations in a small but profound way. Suddenly the orbit of Mercury fitted the theory. This is powerful, if indirect evidence for Einsteins theory. Einsteains theory has, so far, passed all the empirical predictive tests. Attempts at falsification have failed. Thus, it is an excellent model of reality.

jck Addressing the statment that : light bending = space bending This is an example of the predictive principle of science in action. That is : when a scientist formulates a hypothesis as a possible explanation for something, that hypothesis must lead to testable predictions. Einstein formulated his hypothesis of gravity, caused by the bending of space. He then made predictions based on this hypothesis. Light bending around a massy object was one prediction. It was tested and found to be correct. This is not, of course, absolute proof. But science does not operate on absolute proof since no such thing exists. It operates on the falsification principle. Repeated attempts are made to falsify a scientific idea. This is done by prediction and empirical testing. If repeated attempts to falsify an idea fail to do so, then the idea is accepted as a good model of reality. This is the status of the idea that space bends, causing gravity. Many experiments and novel observations have been carried out to attempt to disprove this idea. They have failed. Thus we accept that Einstein's idea is a good model. If you have a 'better' idea, then you must make testable predictions, and put it to the test. Try to falsify the idea. If you cannot, it may have merit.

While this article contains an uncomfortable amount of truth, it is not 100% correct. The problem lies mainly with those who fish outside of their own territories. Since the fish stocks of the wider world are in common ownership, there is no incentive for a specific nation (eg. Japan) to exercise restraint in taking what is there. And there doea not seem to be any international legal mechanism for exercising control. Where there are fish stocks in local waters, it is possible to control the catch and maintain fisheries indefinitely. I would like to see national marine territories extended, so that most of the world's oceans lie within a specific nation's purview. That way, control can be exercised. It would also give more economic resources to many small and poor nations. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a step along the way.