Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: World Needs to Aim for Near-Zero Carbon Emissions

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I wish them luck with that, but I seriously doubt it'll happen in a mere 40 years. Too many people are fighting too hard to maintain the staus quo.
    Maintain the status quo? Half the population of the planet is fighting to increase their emissions as much as possible. The status quo would be nice.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    288
    Yes , I agree those are rather confusing arguments
    Ice is melting, the huricans are more violent, here in Denmark, last year, 7 months made a record being warmer then any coresponding since the modern weather monitoring, yet few weeks ago I could read that the average temperature on Earth has not been raising in the last 10 years, and noone dispute that! (I have references in danish, will try to find them in english)
    At the same time the simulations running on different models show that the temp should have raised by at least 0.2 to 0.3 Celsius due to CO2 emission and consequently greenhouse effect in the last 10 years.
    And that all in the light that our CO2 emission has never been higher then in the last 10 years (big contribution from China, I guess).
    Googling Jeff Masters was not very succesful to me. One link founded where he's bloggin' (outlook 2007 march). Seems to me that he's inclined to connect number and nature of hurricans (incl. storms for simplicity) to El Nino and La Nina effects not global warming. Actually on that blog the map of Surface Sea Temperature shows that in many areas 2007 is cooler then 2005 (both north and south).

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    I apologize for responding with "notable obfuscation". I could have made my point as well without using that phrase to let you know I was aware that you were trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored. If temperature from such sparse sampling sources is being used as an input to climate models, how valid can they be?
    You appologize for the use of the phrase "notable obfuscation" but then you say that I was, "...trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored." I suggest you read back through the thread because I did not do that. You said:

    How many thermometers did the tooth fairy have 100 years ago and where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?
    I could either interperet your statement literally and assume that you actually thing that the tooth fairy was measuring temperatures 100 years ago, or I can assume that you don't actually know who was measureing temperatures 100 years ago. I assumed the latter and told you who was measuring temperatures 100 years ago. I gave you a clear piece of information in a single sentence and provided you with a link. But then you said I was obfuscating. And now you say that I was trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored when I was simply telling you something you didn't appear to know. I didn't answer your question at length, but there is nothing wrong with that. You could have used my answer to start your own research into how the British Empire monitored temperatures. I would like an appology for you saying that I was trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    I gave you a clear piece of information in a single sentence and provided you with a link. But then you said I was obfuscating. And now you say that I was trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored when I was simply telling you something you didn't appear to know. I didn't answer your question at length, but there is nothing wrong with that. You could have used my answer to start your own research into how the British Empire monitored temperatures. I would like an appology for you saying that I was trying to invent germaneness for the existence of the British Empire as a substitute for a rational argument for how well the Earth's temperature has been monitored.
    I'm so ignorant that I still think you were attempting to avoid admitting (probably even to yourself) that the Earth's temperature was not measured sufficiently well 100 years ago by anyone. I was attempting to point out the absurdity of the implication that it had been by facetiously attributing it to the tooth fairy. Linking to a description of the British Empire seemed to me (and still does) to be a deliberate tactic to avoid providing the data that has convinced you that the 100 year old value for Earth's temperature is valid.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,955
    Enough already.

    On page 242, Chapter 3 of IPCC Working Group 1 report, is a graph showing a number of temperature reconstructions going back to about 1850. The IPCC report makes mention of gaps in data coverage and explains in broad terms how they were addressed.

    I picked one of them, by Lugina and others, and found a description of their database here. This particular database uses 384 stations from the northern hemisphere and 301 from the southern. I found a further description of an earlier version of that database here. Section 5.2 discusses the weaknesses of southern hemisphere coverage, and highlights the low coverage in the last quarter of the ninteenth century, showing, in 20 year increments, how the network grew over time. It's possible that the shortcomings of the earliest data are dealt with in the newer database, or simply that the spatial resolution was improved by adding stations, but I just don't know. I also do not know what sort of techniques were applied to deal with the changing size of database, but they reference the techniques somewhere in there.

    All this took about 10 minutes to find, and much longer to summarize because I read and type slowly. Sheesh.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Thanks for your link Torsten.

    Gourdhead, you didn't ask me to provide:

    ...the data that has convinced you that the 100 year old value for Earth's temperature is valid.
    You asked me:

    How many thermometers did the tooth fairy have 100 years ago and where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?
    As you didn't appear to know who was measuring temperatures 100 years ago, I told you who was doing it. I was not obfuscating and I was not attempting to avoid rational arguement of how well the earth's temperature has been monitored. That seems a very odd thing for someone who brings the tooth fairy into discussions of global warming to accuse me of. I would still like an apology.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by GOURDHEAD View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
    I take it we're agreed that reducing carbon emissions will reduce the amount of damage caused by global warming.


    Quote:Me
    I haven't seen convincing evidence either way. I'm convinced that ice is melting and that is evidence that in those areas some warming is happening. I'm not convinced that the temperature is increasing globally, although I suspect it is, but I don't know how much effect CO2 is having.

    Quote: You
    Scientific evidence collected through the use of thermometers indicate that the average temperature of the earth increased by 0.74 +/- 0.18 degrees over the past 100 years.

    Quote:Me
    How many thermometers did the tooth fairy have 100 years ago and where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?

    Quote: Yopu
    Actually it was the British empire that did a lot of the work, along with many other nations. Here is an article on the British Empire:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

    Notable obfuscation. I would that the evidence for the actual measuring of temperature was as much in evidence as is the evidence for there having been a British Empire. It is plausible that some of the British ships on occasion took the temperature of sea water and that some occupiers of various land sites recorded temperature, but it is not easy to believe that laboratory discipline of the type required to establish credible measurement of global temperature was practiced by the British empire any more than it was by the tooth fairy.

    For an even better obfuscation, try: "It must be global warming because motorcycles don't have doors."

    Here I need to remind myself that global warming is plausible; it has not been quantified sufficiently to support predictions of extreme disaster. Nor do we know how the combinations and permutations of the many possible feedbacks will function to enlarge or diminish the prolonged effects. Beware of both the chicken littles and the pollyannas.

    As you didn't appear to know who was measuring temperatures 100 years ago, I told you who was doing it. I was not obfuscating and I was not attempting to avoid rational arguement of how well the earth's temperature has been monitored. That seems a very odd thing for someone who brings the tooth fairy into discussions of global warming to accuse me of. I would still like an apology.
    The above review of our exchanges demonstrates to a rational person attempting to assess the accuracy of data used to evaluate climate change and to make reasonable recommendations about which corrective actions are needed that what I am challenging is the accuracy and adequancy of data collected from which to make later climate change asessments. Your responses have focussed on there having been a British Empire and your seeking an apology instead of your dealing with: "why you think data collection 100 years ago was both adequate and sufficiently accurate".

    I don't mind apologizing when you convince me that you have dealt with the primary issue at hand. Is it possible that you are employing an old debating trick by picking some inferior clause and promoting it as if it were the main course of debate?

    I still don't know who adequately and accurately measured the global temperature 100 years ago. Do you?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote: You
    Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
    I take it we're agreed that reducing carbon emissions will reduce the amount of damage caused by global warming.


    Quote:Me
    I haven't seen convincing evidence either way. I'm convinced that ice is melting and that is evidence that in those areas some warming is happening. I'm not convinced that the temperature is increasing globally, although I suspect it is, but I don't know how much effect CO2 is having.

    Quote: You
    Scientific evidence collected through the use of thermometers indicate that the average temperature of the earth increased by 0.74 +/- 0.18 degrees over the past 100 years.

    Quote:Me
    How many thermometers did the tooth fairy have 100 years ago and where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?

    Quote: Yopu
    Actually it was the British empire that did a lot of the work, along with many other nations. Here is an article on the British Empire:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

    Notable obfuscation. I would that the evidence for the actual measuring of temperature was as much in evidence as is the evidence for there having been a British Empire. It is plausible that some of the British ships on occasion took the temperature of sea water and that some occupiers of various land sites recorded temperature, but it is not easy to believe that laboratory discipline of the type required to establish credible measurement of global temperature was practiced by the British empire any more than it was by the tooth fairy.

    For an even better obfuscation, try: "It must be global warming because motorcycles don't have doors."

    Here I need to remind myself that global warming is plausible; it has not been quantified sufficiently to support predictions of extreme disaster. Nor do we know how the combinations and permutations of the many possible feedbacks will function to enlarge or diminish the prolonged effects. Beware of both the chicken littles and the pollyannas.

    You:
    As you didn't appear to know who was measuring temperatures 100 years ago, I told you who was doing it. I was not obfuscating and I was not attempting to avoid rational arguement of how well the earth's temperature has been monitored. That seems a very odd thing for someone who brings the tooth fairy into discussions of global warming to accuse me of. I would still like an apology.
    The above review of our exchanges demonstrates to a rational person attempting to assess the accuracy of data used to evaluate climate change and to make reasonable recommendations about which corrective actions are needed that what I am challenging is the accuracy and adequancy of data collected from which to make later climate change asessments. Your responses have focussed on there having been a British Empire and your seeking an apology instead of your dealing with: "why you think data collection 100 years ago was both adequate and sufficiently accurate".

    I don't mind apologizing when you convince me that you have dealt with the primary issue at hand. Is it possible that you are employing an old debating trick by picking some inferior clause and promoting it as if it were the main course of debate?

    I still don't know who adequately and accurately measured the global temperature 100 years ago. Do you? I believe it was not adequately and accurately measured.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    I don't mind apologizing when you convince me that you have dealt with the primary issue at hand. Is it possible that you are employing an old debating trick by picking some inferior clause and promoting it as if it were the main course of debate?
    We're not debating. Any possibility of debate stopped when you insulted me. I am asking for an apology for your bad behaviour. You insulted me by saying I was obfuscating after I gave you a piece of relevent information. When I asked you to apologize for that you said I was trying to avoid rational arguement. Both those things are bad things to do and I'm asking you to appologize for them. The reason I am asking for an apology is so you will recognize you did something wrong and learn not do it in the future.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    We're not debating. Any possibility of debate stopped when you insulted me. I am asking for an apology for your bad behaviour. You insulted me by saying I was obfuscating after I gave you a piece of relevent information. When I asked you to apologize for that you said I was trying to avoid rational arguement. Both those things are bad things to do and I'm asking you to appologize for them. The reason I am asking for an apology is so you will recognize you did something wrong and learn not do it in the future.
    I am unable to agree that I have insulted you, and, if I were to apoligize, it would be done without conviction. If you can not see that you were obfuscating, and still are, by not dealing with the primary issue, you have a lot to learn. If you really believe that I have falsely accused you, write me off as incorrigible and go your merry way. If you have a serious scientific interest in evaluating climate change, you would want to demonstrate why you can believe that Earth's temperature was properly measured 100 years ago. It' conceivable that you may even be right.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    So this:

    Actually it was the British empire that did a lot of the work, along with many other nations. Here is an article on the British Empire:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
    Is obfuscating? This was in reply to:

    How many thermometers did the tooth fairy have 100 years ago and where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?
    A post that contained the tooth fairy. :-)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    A post that contained the tooth fairy.* :-)
    It also contained: "where did it place them to get a reasonably accurate global temperature at meaningfully spaced intervals of space and time to establish the reference from which the delta temperature has been determined?".* Is there some reason you have avoided addressing the real question?* You seem to be avoiding it as if it were a tyrannosaurus in the living room or a mosasaur in the swimming pool.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,881
    We normally don't have threads about Global Warming these days, and the reason is that it is so easy to get uncivil in the discussions about it. I'm not issuing a warning, but I'm asking both Ronald Brak and GOURDHEAD to stop posting in this thread. We've heard these arguments before, and this is really heading into ad hom land quickly.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,955
    For anyone interested in the Global Historical Climatology Network, a little more searching brought up this Index Page at NOAA. Clicking on "Temperature" will take you to a page with links to papers describing the database.

    Of particular interest, given the preceding posts, is An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database.

    On page 7 of this pdf file is a chart showing how many stations were available in the record commencing in 1850. Figure 3b on the next page is a map showing the location of the stations, with the comment:
    "Work is under way to fill in some of the large data-sparse regions shown in (b) by digitizing selected station data from Colonial Era Archives (Peterson and Griffiths 1996)."
    One would reasonably conclude that an update of this ~10 year old paper would show a denser coverage.

    Despite the acknowledged shortcomings of the dataset, many climatologists seem to feel that the number and distribution of data sources in 1900 are sufficient to tell us something about trends between then and now.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    We normally don't have threads about Global Warming these days, and the reason is that it is so easy to get uncivil in the discussions about it. I'm not issuing a warning, but I'm asking both Ronald Brak and GOURDHEAD to stop posting in this thread. We've heard these arguments before, and this is really heading into ad hom land quickly.
    No problem, bye.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-28, 06:44 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-11, 08:53 PM
  3. World Carbon Emissions Monitor
    By sarongsong in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-15, 09:53 PM
  4. Co2 emissions
    By Sean Clayden in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-11, 07:57 PM
  5. Ignorant carbon isotope/carbon cycle question
    By Paracelsus in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-27, 05:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •