LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 122

Thread: Tsunami

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Monmouth County
    Posts
    1,184

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by andrewk529 View Post
    In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

    1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
    2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
    3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
    4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
    5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
    6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
    7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
    8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

    Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
    "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"

    The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

    The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...
    Trenberth's "travesty we can't account for the lack of warming"

    The second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he'd recently published that discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going (Trenberth 2009).

    In Trenberth's paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. More on Trenberth's travesty...
    The full body of evidence for man-made global warming

    An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.

    What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

    This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

    Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

    What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.

    There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.
    Your either a very fast typer or have alot of time on your hands.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    wb and you can find me at crystal and sweetwater and all over wb.
    Posts
    1,538
    so my dad who i recently stated works for ge in the nuclear department making the fuel rods that are in reactor 1 i think he gets daily updates from this website http://www.nei.org/
    and through ge themself since he has to make calls daily for giving them help and he says that we shouldnt be worry what so ever. and this is coming from a guy who is basically the head inspector of the fuel rods before they are shipped off and knows so much about them.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Eastern Shore
    Posts
    365
    Images
    2
    I don't watch tv, but i do have the internet so i do know unfortunately that charlie sheen has been banging lines and women, and japan has had a earthquake. It is what it is. But after reading all 11 pages of that post the thing that bothers me is that people were surprised that they didn't see any looters in japan during or after the tradegy. To me it is no surprise at all. Maybe we need a wake up call on who we are and where we are going as americans. Just a little more consciousness of the retarded population we are growing.
    Last edited by marknel83; Mar 19, 2011 at 01:11 AM.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by idsmashh View Post
    ummm?? so are tsunamis messured different? a 13ft wave or even a 23ft wave is far from a city crusher?? they must be measured different? can anyone explain??
    its moving at 500 mph, thats why its a city crusher

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hilton Head Island - OB, SD
    Posts
    4,494
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewk529 View Post
    The connection between long wave radiation and CO2 heat absorption has been proven since the 1880's. Think of what is happening when you take sequestered carbon.. ie oil and coal and release the carbon into our atmosphere. We know from isotopic data that the origin of the Carbon is from fossil fuels and is currently increasing within our atmosphere. Scientists are in agreement that humans are irreparably altering the Earths climate. Where there is disagreement is what exactly that change will produce and when. There is no planet B and we should all be aware of the damage we are causing.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/


    If you want any pdf files from scientific journals regarding AGW, PM me.
    Point taken. But 1880 is not long ago at all. Not at all. I am talking about more like 800 A.D.

    I understand that you can link the fossil fuels etc to increaing temperatures, maybe... But you can only guess what the result would be. You also cannot prove that the ice caps are melting faster in the time of 1880-2011 then they were in the times 880-1011... There is no evidence that the ice caps were not melting JUST as fast, if not faster... There is no proof that the earth's atmosphere was increasing and decreasing in paterns 500 years ago.

    Not scientific data (to my knowledge) has shown proof of any of that. There is no other periods to match data with.. The scientists are saying that in 1980-2010 the temperatures increased substantially more than they did between 1920-1950.... You would have to map this past 120 years against other 120 year periods throughout the last few thousand years to get any solid data. Which we cannot gather. You have to rely on fossilized materials and carbon dating etc, which all covers a period far too long beofre now. There is too much of a gap and I dont beleive we have accurate data over the last 100 year period. There is no bench mark to measure that against...

    The earths climate over the past 500 years could have been influenced more by one Volcanic erruption that all of the fossil fuel emmisions combined. We don't know that, and to flat out say it isnt true would only be speculation, no?

    I am saying that the "climate changing" that you speak of could be linked to something that changed our atmopshere 1000 years ago, or 500 or 10,000. We could be stuck in a 500 year climate cycle that has been exactly the same for 30,000 years. We dont know that. The seas have risen and fallen in the past. The climate has always changed... It always has... You cannot prove that prior to 1880, the climate was changing at an even more rapid pace, and that fossil emissions actually slowed the process....

    I am just saying, I have watched so many debates on television and in the news about all this, and no one, on either side can say "Yes, this is what happened" or "No, this didn't happen", it is all speculation. I have heard far too many logical explanations to why the earth's atmosphere is "warming" when in fact we have had the coldest seasons in recent memory.. and that may mean nothing, but there is not a whole lot of "Global Warming" talk, now its back to the logical "climate change" label, because the climate is changing, which many people think has ALWAYS been the case...

    I just think that 120 years of data is about 1/10000000000th of a milli-second as far as the earth's life span and history....

    I guess my argument in a nutshell would be that in the next 500,000 years it would take for mankind's effects on the climate to actually reach a life threatening level, there very well could be many more catesrophic event's (natural) that would completely throw the climate off axis completely... So, 1000 years from now, the climate change may not matter, there could be volcanic activity, or natural disasters that release more harmful gasses into the atmosphere than mankind ever did....

    But who knows... I just know that even on left wind television etc, the climate change advocates never prove their point... There are always counter points to their ideas, and no one knows for sure.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Brick Township, New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    686
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cobtaco223 View Post
    its moving at 500 mph, thats why its a city crusher

    aka, it has an ENORMOUS period. like 100seconds or so

    13ft @ 100seconds = killer

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by aka pumpmaster View Post
    You mean those same scientists who admitted to cooking the books in favor of their theory? Or the ones who purposefully placed monitoring stations in cities knowing that the readings would be higher? That crowd? Your phony religion is unravelling every day, deal with it.


    I wonder if you even bothered to read Andrew's post that actually cites the facts in the case you referred to in such a friendly way ... and the findings of international panels on that case. What I've been saying is that there has been a consistent and substantial flow of cash to cast doubt, and you and the "news" programs that you watch have been influenced by them.

    Issues like this always boil down to money. Who has the most to lose, who has the most to gain. Big oil companies are hauling in 250 billion a year. If you look into those questions in a meaningful way, you may come out with a different opinion.

    ~Utah

  8. #108

    @johhnyutah

    I must hunt you down and battle you to the death....There can only be one!

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wilmington,DE
    Posts
    233
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodVibes View Post
    Your either a very fast typer or have alot of time on your hands.
    It was actually copied and pasted from a science blog by John Cook. I often encounter the same arguments while discussing the ramifications of AGW. I also have been doing parallel research on the implications biologically from AGW. Needless to say, the information is fresh within my mind. And I feel compelled to explain rationally the clear science behind this issue which will effect us all. The great thing about science is that even if you don't believe in it; it's true.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wilmington,DE
    Posts
    233
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by zach619 View Post
    Point taken. But 1880 is not long ago at all. Not at all. I am talking about more like 800 A.D.

    I understand that you can link the fossil fuels etc to increaing temperatures, maybe... But you can only guess what the result would be. You also cannot prove that the ice caps are melting faster in the time of 1880-2011 then they were in the times 880-1011... There is no evidence that the ice caps were not melting JUST as fast, if not faster... There is no proof that the earth's atmosphere was increasing and decreasing in paterns 500 years ago.

    Not scientific data (to my knowledge) has shown proof of any of that. There is no other periods to match data with.. The scientists are saying that in 1980-2010 the temperatures increased substantially more than they did between 1920-1950.... You would have to map this past 120 years against other 120 year periods throughout the last few thousand years to get any solid data. Which we cannot gather. You have to rely on fossilized materials and carbon dating etc, which all covers a period far too long beofre now. There is too much of a gap and I dont beleive we have accurate data over the last 100 year period. There is no bench mark to measure that against...

    The earths climate over the past 500 years could have been influenced more by one Volcanic erruption that all of the fossil fuel emmisions combined. We don't know that, and to flat out say it isnt true would only be speculation, no?

    I am saying that the "climate changing" that you speak of could be linked to something that changed our atmopshere 1000 years ago, or 500 or 10,000. We could be stuck in a 500 year climate cycle that has been exactly the same for 30,000 years. We dont know that. The seas have risen and fallen in the past. The climate has always changed... It always has... You cannot prove that prior to 1880, the climate was changing at an even more rapid pace, and that fossil emissions actually slowed the process....

    I am just saying, I have watched so many debates on television and in the news about all this, and no one, on either side can say "Yes, this is what happened" or "No, this didn't happen", it is all speculation. I have heard far too many logical explanations to why the earth's atmosphere is "warming" when in fact we have had the coldest seasons in recent memory.. and that may mean nothing, but there is not a whole lot of "Global Warming" talk, now its back to the logical "climate change" label, because the climate is changing, which many people think has ALWAYS been the case...

    I just think that 120 years of data is about 1/10000000000th of a milli-second as far as the earth's life span and history....

    I guess my argument in a nutshell would be that in the next 500,000 years it would take for mankind's effects on the climate to actually reach a life threatening level, there very well could be many more catesrophic event's (natural) that would completely throw the climate off axis completely... So, 1000 years from now, the climate change may not matter, there could be volcanic activity, or natural disasters that release more harmful gasses into the atmosphere than mankind ever did....

    But who knows... I just know that even on left wind television etc, the climate change advocates never prove their point... There are always counter points to their ideas, and no one knows for sure.
    Volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. A large volcanic eruption such as the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 can have a global cooling effect of 0.1°–0.3°C for several years (Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000).

    However, mega-eruptions or a series of eruptions can have a cooling effect that take decades to wear off, giving a perceived warming effect. Zielinski 2000 studies past volcanoes, particularly over the past few centuries:
    Zielinksi concluded "the lack of any climatically effective volcanism in the period 1920s to early 1950s undoubtedly contributed to the overall warm conditions during those decades." (Zielinski 2000).

    This is confirmed by Hegerl 2003 who found that "early 20th century
    warming is attributed to a composite of greenhouse warming, an uncertain contribution from solar forcing, and a recovery from a previous period of heavy volcanism".

    Similarly, Bertrand 1999 found that "the lack of volcanism during the period 1925-1960 could account, at least partly, for the observed warming trend in this period". Bertrand was investigating the effect of solar and volcanic influence on climate and concluded "these are clearly not sufficient to explain the observed 20th century warming and more specifically the warming trend which started at the beginning of the 1970s".

    In short, a lack of volcanic activity had some part in temperature rise over the first half of the 20th century. However, it has had little to no part in the modern global warming trend that began in the 1970's. On the contrary, relatively frequent volcanic activity in the late 20th century may have masked some of the warming caused by CO2.

    Doran in his 2009 study confirms the consensus within the Climatological scientific community. 96% of qualified scientists agree on the notion of AGW. There is always going to be a few individuals who do not agree within an issue. But the clear majority
    implicates humanity in our current warming trends. Your idea about localized temperature fluctuation and an alleged discrediting of AGW is erroneous. Science is clear on the 2009-2010 cooling cycle:

    Eurasia and North America are experiencing unusually cold conditions. On the other hand, Greenland, eastern Siberia and the Arctic ocean are experiencing unusual warmth. The warmest regions (more than 7° Celsius above average) are over the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Unsurprisingly, sea ice extent was below average in this region.

    These strong contrasts in temperature are the result of a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. This is caused by opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and mid-latitudes. During a negative phase, pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in mid-latitudes. In December 2009, the Arctic Oscillation index was -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950. Note the blue dot in the bottom right corner representing December 2009.
    To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. Interestingly, Roger Pielke Sr takes the opposite approach when assessing global temperature in December 2009 as measured by satellites. Despite the regional cold weather, global temperature has not shown a dramatic drop in December, leading Pielke to conclude (with original emphasis included):

    "This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience."

    After taking a broader look at global temperature, Pielke is forced to conclude that it's preferable to focus on small pieces of the puzzle than the bigger picture. Better that is, if the global picture isn't giving you the result you're looking for.


    Data from Stalactites among other sources can clearly show us the temperatures regional and globally from C.E 500 beyond and even earlier through archeological evidence.

    http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2786

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...8&searchtype=a

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dece...old-spells.htm
    Last edited by andrewk529; Mar 22, 2011 at 05:55 PM.