Established Member
So, mugaliens, where do we suggest we get our protein and omega-3's from if we can't eat fish of any kind? And what about raising herbivorous fish (say, carp or tilapia) that could eat the residues from algae oil processing?
Also, what do you mean by "high-e" and "low-e" homes? What is to be done about the homes that have already been built?
- Maha Vailo
Established Member
Just the other day I was thinking that as Stroller is clearly in the process of flooding this forum with all denialist standard "arguments", and with this argument list in mind, I thought that what we haven't yet seen is the claims about different planets showing warming and therefore it can't be mankind's fault in Earth either. Sure enough, here we now have the "Mars is warming" claim parroted by Stroller. As you can see from the linked article, the argument has no base:
By the way, notice how the argument list has three planets claimed to show warming, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune, and the Mars article also mentioned Pluto as one place claimed to show warming, so that makes 4 planets out of 8 (Earth is excluded because we consider other planets than Earth) claimed to show warming. If 8 planets are considered, and they can only be either randomly warming or cooling, how many would be expected to show warming statistically, 4 perhaps (ignoring the exact no temperature differences option)? So, even ignoring the fact that denialists have based their argumentation to insufficient evidence, 4 planets warming wouldn't still make their case.So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.
Established Member
It's typical of a Martian climate change denialist like Ari to start quoting from blogs in support of his position.Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Are you saying NASA isn't telling the truth?
Maybe you think they faked the moon landings as well.
See Ari, easy isn't it?
Now I know you are anxious to get away from it but:
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
"like it has been said, radiative heating is not the most prominent mechanism."
Stroller:
"I missed that. What has been proposed as the most prominent mechanism for the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans? By who?"
Last edited by Stroller; 2009-Jun-26 at 07:41 PM.
Order of Kilopi
Yup, dismissing someone as a 'denialist' is the way to win an arguement.
By the way, if you look at 8 planets in stable orbits over the period of several orbits, you should get zero showing much change. After 4.5x10^9 years, the planets should be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun. So, if you see 4 warming, or even 4 warming and 4 cooling, something odd is going on.
Established Member
Thanks Korjik, good point. And especially true of a planet with a relatively short orbital period like Mars if the warming has been occurring over 30 years or so.
Bad Post-Doc
Stroller, I suggest you should not accuse anyone else of not answering questions.
In fact, let's go back to one I think is awfully important. What would make you change your mind?
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
The “other planets are warming too” but has been pretty soundly debunked.
Established Member
Fair's fair Gillian, I told you my qualifications and asked you yours long before your latest question.
Established Member
What is it with you planetary climate change denialists linking to blogs?
Do you think NASA lied too lomiller1? You and Ari are conspiracy theorists it seems.
Let's take a quick look then
"First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we’d expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun."
Eh?
Where else does he think a "really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter" could come from?
The Earth has nice strong negative feedbacks to deal with solar upticks, it has remained at a roughly even temperature for a couple of billion years while the sun has increased it's output by ~25%. Your blogger doesn't understand the first thing about planetary fluid dynamics.
Bad Post-Doc
My qualifications in evaluating scientific claims? Well, I was taught the scientific method in grade school, as I hope were you. I have taken college science classes and have continued with independent study since then. I consider myself better qualified to judge several scientific subject than I consider you to judge climatology, given some fundamental misunderstandings you've shown.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
There does seem to be unusual changes. Yes, too early to conclude based on these observations what will happen.
There have been some comments about a peculiar cooling in the Arctic. My link that noted it is expected that 90% of the migratory birds will not be able to nest, in high northern regions, as the snow has not melted, for example.
Compare past years (any of the last 50 years) to the current Arctic temperature. (Click on any of the past years.)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Last edited by William; 2009-Jun-27 at 04:23 AM. Reason: grammar
Banned
Not in the least! Why do you ask?
Meats, eggs, nuts, grains, legumes, and dairy... At least those are the top 5 sources listed on Wikipedia.
By protein content (grams protein per 100 g food), it's egg white, bearded seal, soy protein, moose, whey, steelhead trout, narwhal, spriulina alga, beluga, arctic char... Certainly fish are among the list. But just as certainly, other items are on the list which can provide 100% of our protein requirements.
For example, flax is six times richer than most fish oils in n-3 (Omega-3). Other sources include butternuts, walnuts, pecans, and hazel nuts. Grass-fed beef is also high in n-3, as is lamb, and even microalgae (Crypthecodinium cohnii and Schizochytrium ) which can be produced in bioreactors.
In short, Maha - LOTS of sources!!!
Go for it!And what about raising herbivorous fish (say, carp or tilapia) that could eat the residues from algae oil processing?
"e" refers to overall energy efficiency. My uncle has a high-e home. My parents do not. They both have the same square footage and similar floorplans, but my uncle pays less than a third of my parent's total energy bill.Also, what do you mean by "high-e" and "low-e" homes? What is to be done about the homes that have already been built?
There are many inexpensive things which can be done to existing homes to make them far more energy efficient.
Last edited by mugaliens; 2009-Jun-27 at 06:39 AM.
Established Member
You can try to handwave the evidence off like this (talk about trying to avoid specifics of the matter...), but I can also refer you directly to the paper (the blog I quoted is based on actual research papers) they referred to: Szwast et al. (2006) show that Mars albedo changes strongly due to dust conditions, so comparing two snapshots like Fenton et al. (2007) did, doesn't provide proof of global warming in Mars.
If you look at my post again, you will also notice that I never denied the possibility of Mars warming, I only highlighted the lack of evidence for it, meaning that making a conclusion that Mars is warming based on the available evidence is premature.
I don't know, what did NASA say on this matter? However, I am saying that evidence from Fenton et al. doesn't justify the conclusion that Mars is warming. More data is needed.
From my latest posts:
#1454: 4 questions - you answered 1
#1515: 5 questions - you answered 0
This has been a common trend here ever since I started participating discussions about climate. You don't answer questions, but then try to blame others not answering them (sometimes even when questions have clearly been answered already).
As it happens, I was going to answer your questions today anyway, I just made a quick response to the Mars thing yesterday, but I wanted to see which revision stays of the post containing the questions. You seem to have a tendency to change the contents of your posts even hours after the initial post. (Reminds me of time some months ago when you had a habbit of making insulting comments about me, letting them stay a while, and then editing them out.)
Answer to your questions is found from the papers I linked to:
However, the papers I provided are just some examples here and there, and not necessarily most representative of the body of research on the subject. Their purpose was to give you a handle to study the issue further by yourself (by following the citations to given papers for example). Answer to "by who?" is scientific community of course.
You claim that you know that I'm anxious to get away from it, what is you proof for this claim?
"Denialist" is a commonly used term in this context (Stroller likes to use the term "alarmist" of climate scientists). I also didn't use the term in order to win any arguments. I did adress the specifics of the subject.
I was presenting my argument in the light of current body of evidence presented from Mars. Take two measurements in different times, and determine the direction of temperature evolution based on that. Do you think that in such conditions you could ever get exactly zero temperature evolution? It doesn't matter if it's very small amount of warming because this crowd will use anything. If from your two measurements you derive a "warming" of 0.00001 K +/- 5 K, some of them will still claim that the place is experiencing warming.
Banned
1983 had a similar below-average start around the 130-155 day point...
Established Member
For context, the graph William posted is for the area north of the 80th parallel. I've marked it in red on this copy of today's arctic sea ice extent map:
Back on page 7 of this thread, in January, William was reporting how cold it was in the Great Lakes region, and how canals in Holland were freezing, and I pointed out how it was above average temperature in the high arctic, at Alert, Cambridge Bay and Resolute. The point was not to argue that it is getting warmer, but to get him thinking about the regional extent of cold air masses that bring extreme temperatures. But it's interesting, on William's chart the area between this year's daily line and the average appears to be much more in the positive than in the negative.
Compare the following two maps. Again, I've added the 80th parallel in red.
The weather stories William recently posted were about Churchill and the Hudson Bay area, as I recall. That would be on the right side of this map for May:
Unfortunately the scale of the two maps varies, and I don't know why they differ. It would be nice if the second one showed all of Hudson Bay.
Established Member
I think I may have asked a silly question there, but I was wondering about what your favorite sources of protein were.
That may be true, but I think those are the wrong kinds of omega-3's. Also, aren't those sources more expensive, pound for pound than fish? On an additional note, I doubt there's enough pasture land and grove land to grow all the grass-fed red meat and nuts to satisfy the world's omega-3 needs in a sustainable manner. And who would relish the thought of eating microalgae, anyway?For example, flax is six times richer than most fish oils in n-3 (Omega-3). Other sources include butternuts, walnuts, pecans, and hazel nuts. Grass-fed beef is also high in n-3, as is lamb, and even microalgae (Crypthecodinium cohnii and Schizochytrium ) which can be produced in bioreactors.
In short, Maha - LOTS of sources!!!
There is, however, enough room in the ocean for aquaculture.
I have also heard that flaxseed oil increases the risk of prostate cancer. Can't dig out the source right now, but it's another reason to find sustainable means of aquaculture ASAP.
Like what? Can any of these be done for, say, under $25? My parents are on an extreme budget."e" refers to overall energy efficiency. My uncle has a high-e home. My parents do not. They both have the same square footage and similar floorplans, but my uncle pays less than a third of my parent's total energy bill.
There are many inexpensive things which can be done to existing homes to make them far more energy efficient.
- Maha Vailo
Established Member
Just like it is here on earth. We still don't know enough about inter decadal changes in cloud covering the parts of the climate system particularly sensitive to insolation.
The papers you link don't say the mechanism they describe is the major mechanism for the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean as you stated. Your concentration on specific studies seems to be preventing you from seeing the bigger picture, which is that because the oceans have more than a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and retain and release heat on much longer timescales than the atmosphere does, it is the oceans which drive longer term changes in atmospheric temperature in general, not the other way round.
The vastly powerful role water vapour plays in atmosphere-ocean interactional dynamics means that small changes in the feedbacks produced by water completely overwhelm any influence co2 might have. Gavin admits as much in his article on realclimate.
Since Swifts admonition to us a while ago I have been trying to stick to the phrase 'AGW hypothesis proponents'. You however have been as insulting and derogatory as ever (and getting away with it), and occasionally I respond in kind.
Well I was going on the article quoting 'NASA scientists' who had discovered a 0.5C warming since the '70's. A quantity similar to the amount of warming on earth. So this 0.00001 K is just a dismissive rhetorical device as far as I can see.
Established Member
Hi Gillian. Thank you.
As I told you before, I have a joint honours degree in The History and Philosophy of Science and Computer Science. I am also a fully qualified Mechanical Engineer.
Whilst I admire your commitment to continued independent study, I note that you already said on this thread that you know squat about climatology. I wonder therefore how you are able to assess 'fundamental misunderstandings' regarding it.
I also don't know which are the 'several scientific subject' that you consider yourself 'better qualified to judge', and given you don't know which scientific subjects I studied during my degree or that I have taken a continued interest in during the years following my post graduate work, I wonder how you have reached your conclusion.
To be honest, I find your attempts to smear my knowledge and reasoning abilities amusing if a little gauche.
Anyway, since you gave me an answer, I'll partially answer your most recent question; "What would it take to change your mind" (about anthropogenic global warming.
Well, if the earth had been getting warmer rather than cooler for the last decade, that would be a start.
If the IPCC projections weren't based on the 30 year positive phase of a sixty year oceanic cycle overlaid on a warming trend which has been in place since the nadir of the little ice age before man made co2 emissions got going to any great extent that would help.
http://1.2.3.12/bmi/wattsupwiththat....asofu_ipcc.jpg
If the models properly accounted for convective processes inside local weather systems which lift vast amounts of heat straight up past most of the co2 blanket and radiate it to space that would be a good thing too.
Clouds might then be understood as the powerful heat engines they are, rather than fluffy things which trap heat in at night (except the skies clear in the nightime tropics where the big heat action is happening). They are far more powerful negative feedback in the climate system than modelers seem to realise.
When the AGW hypothesis proponents stop wittering about a paltry co2 greenhouse effect and spend an amount of time studying the tropical steamy sauna effect commensurate with the proportion of heat energy transported by it, I'll start to take them a bit more seriously and accord them a bit more respect. While they follow the money and the agenda driven science it buys, and disregard far more powerful climate processes, I won't.
Banned
You seen the price of some of the fish in the supermarket these days?Also, aren't those sources more expensive, pound for pound than fish?
You doubt? Or do you know? If you don't know, please either crank the calcs and let us know or more on!On an additional note, I doubt there's enough pasture land and grove land to grow all the grass-fed red meat and nuts to satisfy the world's omega-3 needs in a sustainable manner.
Uh... Fish... Plants (fertilizer)...And who would relish the thought of eating microalgae, anyway?
Not really...There is, however, enough room in the ocean for aquaculture.
And what of the other 7 alternatives? Do they all increse the risk of prostate cancer?I have also heard that flaxseed oil increases the risk of prostate cancer. Can't dig out the source right now, but it's another reason to find sustainable means of aquaculture ASAP.
Order of Kilopi
Climate Bill (Cap-n-Trade) passed in House. Senate next.More there.The American Clean Energy and Security Act calls for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. It would establish a limited number of pollution permits, more than 70 percent of which would initially be given away free to utilities, manufacturers, state governments and others, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The permits could then be traded or sold.
The bill’s chief sponsors -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat -- agreed to reduce the plan’s environmental mandates and increase aid to polluters, including coal-fired power plants, to help companies meet the measure’s clean-air regulations. The strategy was necessary to amass the votes needed to pass the bill.
“The Senate is now going to see it’s possible to do this legislation” by balancing competing interests and building “coalitions of environmentalists and industry to support it,” Waxman said in an interview.
Order of Kilopi
The hottest year on record was 2005 followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.Well, if the earth had been getting warmer rather than cooler for the last decade, that would be a start.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten.../hansen-t2.jpg
Established Member
I don't understand what you're confused about. There are several kinds of omega-3's and not all of them are as beneficial as the stuff in fish.
If you get the stuff in a can, you can cut your prices. Have you seen the price of flaxseed oil recently?You seen the price of some of the fish in the supermarket these days?
I'm not the mathematical type, but I do know that you can't get as much meat off a pasture than you can off a feedlot. The difference I will leave to those better-versed in animal agriculture than me. (I'm in the plant field myself.)You doubt? Or do you know? If you don't know, please either crank the calcs and let us know or more on!
Yeah, but not humans.Uh... Fish... Plants (fertilizer)...
Apples and oranges. I already mentioned herbivorous fish. And if we can find a means of feeding fish that didn't require other fish (I have read about genetically engineering soybeans to provide food for fish), we can raise other species as well.Not really...
No, but are nuts and algae as rich as source of the kinds of omega-3's found in fish? I doubt it.And what of the other 7 alternatives? Do they all increse the risk of prostate cancer?
- Maha Vailo
Established Member
True, and doesn't conflict with my statement that the earth has been cooling for the last decade.
It's a pity 'the record' you refer to is inaccurate and short, but there you go.
Before Jim Hansen and the NOAA started 'adjusting' the data, the Gistemp record had the 1998 peak hotter than the 2005 peak, as it still is on the other three global temp series, and it wasn't much above the 1930-1940 period either.
The reality dodgers have been busy, although it would seem that the usual downturn in global temperature during the negative phase of the oceanic cycles postwar was mitigated by the busiest solar cycle on record (400 years of data) and a succession of high, short and vigorous cycles thereafter until the current deep minimum.
Established Member
EPA report suppressed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06...y5117890.shtml
"Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”"
Established Member
Yes, I read about this yesterday at RealClimate, link here.
To mine a few comments from RealClimate:
"Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this 'evidence', they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling."
and
"...what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hilter and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc."
The RealClimate post goes on to address particular issues of the "suppressed" report.
The CBS report you linked to is worth reading all the way to the end as it puts the origin and rejection of the report and the key players in context.
Established Member
I know, there's a comment of mine on that realclimate thread too, and a few which didn't make it through the censorship process.
Bad Post-Doc
So you've said.
Well, you see, I ask questions and listen to the answers. I also understand the difference between climate and weather and when to trust scientists, especially when it's pretty much all of them, over politically-oriented blogs. I know that "such-and-such is not necessarily caused by global warming" is not actually the same as "there's no such thing as global warming."Whilst I admire your commitment to continued independent study, I note that you already said on this thread that you know squat about climatology. I wonder therefore how you are able to assess 'fundamental misunderstandings' regarding it.
I read what you write.I also don't know which are the 'several scientific subject' that you consider yourself 'better qualified to judge', and given you don't know which scientific subjects I studied during my degree or that I have taken a continued interest in during the years following my post graduate work, I wonder how you have reached your conclusion.
You see, you're going to have to explain that. Because it looks an awful lot like it does, unless you can show evidence that the years from the last decade that haven't been listed were awfully cold. A bald statement like that shows that you don't understand the first thing, no matter what qualifications you claim, about presenting evidence. "I don't trust this evidence for X reason" is not the same as "this evidence is incorrect because it fails to take into account Y data."The hottest year on record was 2005 followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten.../hansen-t2.jpg
Also, the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between the peer reviewed papers on the subject and the unpublished claims of those who don't produce them is frankly worrying. And if you don't trust the peer review process, well, that's even more worrying. Not that I claim it's perfect. Just really important as far as it does work.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
you may want to look at this particular blog entry a little more closely
Established Member
Torsten,For context, the graph William posted is for the area north of the 80th parallel. I've marked it in red on this copy of today's arctic sea ice extent map:
Back on page 7 of this thread, in January, William was reporting how cold it was in the Great Lakes region, and how canals in Holland were freezing, and I pointed out how it was above average temperature in the high arctic, at Alert, Cambridge Bay and Resolute. The point was not to argue that it is getting warmer, but to get him thinking about the regional extent of cold air masses that bring extreme temperatures. But it's interesting, on William's chart the area between this year's daily line and the average appears to be much more in the positive than in the negative.
Compare the following two maps. Again, I've added the 80th parallel in red.
The weather stories William recently posted were about Churchill and the Hudson Bay area, as I recall. That would be on the right side of this map for May:
Unfortunately the scale of the two maps varies, and I don't know why they differ. It would be nice if the second one showed all of Hudson Bay.
The open ocean would moderate a cooling affect. A warming or cooling climate change would appear as a see-saw change in weather due to the thermal lag of the oceans and internal mechanisms such as changes in the jet stream and so forth.
This seems to be a global rather than a local phenomenon. (i.e. My comment concerning record cold temperatures in the Hudson Bay region and the high arctic is not the only regions that have experienced cold temperatures.)
In both hemispheres there have been reports of record cold temperatures at night. I see in the US farmers in corn growing areas have been discussing the issue. (Warm nights are required for fast growing corn. Farmers in the Canadian prairie regions have also noted poor hay growing. I see reports of record cold temperatures in the US, Australia, New Zealand. In Calgary, Alberta in June we had to turn the heat on in our house three times and do not open the windows at night. Double pane windows.) The phenomenon is the day time temperature is average to below average and the night temperature is record cold.
Climate change can be cooling or warming.
The atmosphere’s radiation properties, also depends on chemical and ionic reactions. CO2 variation is not the only change that is taking place.
Comment:
The earth’s ionosphere has shrunk by 35% in the night time and 16% in the day time. I am not sure whether the change in the earth’s ionosphere is in response to the cold night time temperatures and cooler daytime temperatures or the change in the earth’s ionosphere is due the recent solar changes. Changes in the earth’s ionosphere seem to indicate that something is changing.
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ml#post1407771
Established Member
I'll do that if you'll look at this one closely.you may want to look at this particular blog entry a little more closely
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...ning-a-review/
Then we'll compare notes.
You'll be pleased to know it is a peer reviewed paper which is under discussion.
Posting Permissions
