| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Just for kicks I checked out one of these experts. Not Fred Singer, I've debunked him before. But guess which one of Iso's sources is an unemployed Hungarian physicist, who last worked in academia as a philosophy instructor. Give up? http://www.desmogblog.com/miklos-zagoni
By the way, he is partly right that water vapor helps regulate climate, and is poorly accounted for in global temperature models. I said that here years ago as a reason that nobody should expect models to predict. Models are developed to compare scenarios. Of course anyone who knew that would know how to handle the data sets honestly. Not Heartland. Iso seems to buy it. Very sad indictment of engineering education in some areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mac"].......... it comes from a dummy front for the Heartland Institute--the folks that brought you the news that tobacco is good for you. Pretty good propaganda piece, Goebbels would be proud of it. [quote]
Goebbels? Really?
A sign of utter desperation.
Gotta be a Nazi to not believe in global warming!
Some serious cred right there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get the cynicism.
This refers to a study in the well respected scientific journal "Science" that publishes peer-reviewed articles. That does not guarantee that the study will turn out to be correct, but it should be taken into account when evaluating global warming, at least until other relevant peer-reviewed studies find things in it that are wrong.
Here is the article's abstract:
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.
The two authors are form the Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China, and the Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | 50 international climate experts break ranks to defy global warming cult and denounce [AGW] as junk science. [..]
Observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global warming junk science. [..]
#22. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
| mac wrote: | | Just for kicks I checked out one of these experts. [..] But guess which one of Iso's sources is an unemployed Hungarian physicist, who last worked in academia as a philosophy instructor. |
|
I very much appreciate Mac's (and others') input to debunk nonsense presented here. Isobars' long list of names and statements also caught my eye as a good example of zero content misleading information.
I briefly looked up number 22 on the list, Georg Kaser. He seems like a solid glacier researcher from Austria who tries to focus on the scientific aspects of global warming and avoid the politics.
Isobars' citation refers to a mistake in the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC) report from 2007, pointed out by Kaser and others in 2010 in a letter to the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/522.1.long). Part of the mistake was that large shrinkage of glaciers in the Himalaya was incorrectly predicted for the year 2035 instead of 2350, due to inaccurate copying from a published study.
But as far as I can tell, and in contrast to isobars' claims in his post, Kaser mostly agrees with the scientific assessments on climate change by the IPCC. For example, the above letter also states that "The IPCC Fourth Assessment [2007 report], particularly of the physical science basis for the changes, is mostly accurate, ...". And after all, he was not only one of many authors on the 2007 IPCC report but also the following one in 2013.
So rather than questioning the overall validity of global warming as described in IPCC reports, Kaser pointed out an embarrassing mistake in the 2007 report, but stayed with IPCC to work on the next report. I suspect that a closer look at isobars' list would find more such examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote - 'So infuriated over the blatant lies (the IPCC) - Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr Ivar Giaever last week resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society - it is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.'
IF correctly reported?? and he did indeed make such an outburst, would one of the global warming certainty 'experts' of the forum please explain,
a) What was the reason for Dr Ivar Giaevers outburst, if not for the reasons he stated?
b) Do they claim he is simply ignorant of the facts of global warming, as presented by the IPCC?
c) What makes them (the forum climatologist experts) think they know better than he does?
It's all to easy and obvious for warmers to just cherry pick from the long list and ridicule the chosen names (the usual tobacco company type propaganda desperation accusation - non climatologist nonsense spouting off etc etc) while studiously ignoring the more profound thinkers, such as Nobel Prize winning Dr Iva Giaever! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheScientist wrote: |
More Carbon Dioxide, Fewer Crop Nutrients
Plants grown in higher concentrations of CO2 have greater yields, but lower amounts of essential nutrients.
Field tests of crops grown in different carbon dioxide conditions reveal new untoward consequences of global warming. Elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced crops with greater yields, but fewer essential nutrients, including zinc, iron, and in some cases, protein, according to a study published this week (May 7) in Nature.
Lead author, Samuel Myers, a researcher in Harvard University’s department of environmental health, told Voice of America: “What our study is showing is that, unequivocally, as CO2 concentrations rise up to levels that we expect to see in the next 40 years, there are very significant reductions in nutrients that are really important for public health.”
Myers and his team grew soybeans, maize, wheat, and rice in both current CO2 conditions of close to 400 parts per million (ppm) and at levels predicted for 2050—around 550 ppm. The sites were in Japan, Australia, and the U.S. “It does depend on environment, rainfall, temperature, et cetera, but here at Horsham, [Victoria, Australia], we’re seeing, on average, an increase of about 20 [percent] to 25 percent increase in yield, but you also get then this 5 [percent] to 10 percent decrease in protein and zinc and iron concentrations,” coauthor Glenn Fitzgerald of the State of Victoria Department of Environment and Primary Industries told the ABC in Australia.
The big concern is that reductions in zinc, iron, or protein in crops could exacerbate global malnourishment. Hannah Stoddart, Oxfam’s head of policy for food and climate, told The Guardian that “with 25 million more children under five at risk of malnutrition by 2050 because of climate change, action to cut emissions and support communities to adapt is crucial.”
|
| TheScientist wrote: |
Hitting a Climate “Seal”-ing
Due to the effects of climate change, female fur seals that successfully breed do so later in life and are more likely to have increased variability within their genomes.
The influence of climate change is already apparent in the genomes of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) living in the southern Atlantic Ocean, according to a study published today (July 23) in Nature. Female seals with high heterozygosity—genetic variation between chromosome pairs—are more likely to join the breeding pool and to breed successfully than are more genetically homogeneous females. These traits are tied to the fluctuating supplies of the tiny krill that the seals eat. But they will not protect the animals as the climate continues to change, as they are not heritable, researchers report. Heterozygosity in breeding females has increased even as the fur seal population and birth weight have declined.
Ecological geneticist Ary Hoffmann of the University of Melbourne in Australia noted that previous work has shown that heterozygous animals typically have an advantage, especially under stressful conditions. “This seems to be . . . a nice illustration of an earlier phenomenon, but then placed in the context of climate change,” said Hoffmann, who was not involved in the study.
“Not many studies have analyzed the consequences of ongoing climate change on patterns of genetic variability, and I think that this study constitutes an unprecedented contribution [in] this respect,” Joaquín Ortego, an evolutionary biologist at the Doñana Biological Station in Spain, wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist.
Researchers have been monitoring fur seals on the island of South Georgia for more than 30 years. Antarctic fur seals nearly went extinct in 19th century when hunters killed many for their fur. The population rebounded since then, but now seems to be falling again. The number of breeding female seals since the1980s has fallen by around one-quarter.
This observed decline in breeding female seals goes hand in hand with climate conditions, researchers have found. Since the 1990s, the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), a climatic pattern in the southern hemisphere, has been changing in ways that reduce the population of the krill that the seals eat.
As food availability-related stress has grown over the years, the birth weight of female pups has decreased. Meanwhile, the weight and age of breeding females grew compared to females that never made it into the breeding population.
A pair of investigators at the University of Bielefeld in Germany and the British Antarctic Survey measured heterozygosity in female seals by sequencing nine bits of repeating DNA called microsatellites. To validate the ability of the markers to represent variability more generally, the researchers also looked at 101 additional markers—single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—in some of the animals.
They found that, especially in years when climate was poor and krill were scarce, only the most heterozygous females entered the breeding population. The females with little internal genetic diversity were more likely to die before reaching breeding age.
“As the climate has gotten progressively worse, locally reducing food availability, then selection has gotten stronger and stronger on the seals,” said study coauthor Joseph Hoffman, a population geneticist at Bielefeld.
While heterozygosity seems to make females more resilient, they do not transmit this trait to their pups. “The sad thing, in a sense, is that these females that are really fit are not going to pass on their increased fitness to their offspring,” Ary Hoffmann noted.
The researchers do not have a full understanding of exactly why heterozygosity seems to give the female breeding seals such an advantage. The likeliest explanation is that heterozygosity is a sign of reduced inbreeding. Genetic variety has long been shown to help other animals to respond to unexpected or variable conditions.
Hoffman said that his team next plans to sequence many more markers throughout the seal genomes, in order to pinpoint where heterozygosity seems most important. He speculated that heterozygosity may be especially important in genome regions encoding pathogen recognition molecules like the major histocompatibility complex, which helps recognize a diverse set of threats.
The authors speculated that the selection for heterozygous female seals may allow the seals to maintain genetic diversity population-wide, even as their overall numbers fall. Genetic diversity makes it more likely that populations will be able to respond to changing conditions.
Still, this continued genetic diversity will only buy the fur seals time to adapt to current climate change, the researchers said. Without heritable genetic changes that allow the seals to cope with their altered world, the population will continue to decline.
“Heterozygote breeding advantage is buffering the expected loss of genetic diversity,” said Ortego. “This can help to maintain the evolutionary potential of the species and ensure population viability in the short-medium term at least, until the demographic decline reduces census size below a threshold that makes the population to go inevitably extinct.”
J. Forcada and J.I. Hoffman, “Climate change selects for heterozygosity in a declining fur seal population,” Nature, 511:462-5, 2014.
|
Sorry, Jenkins. Must be a real burden to be recognized as such a fool.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LHDR wrote: | | I don't get the cynicism. |
Simple. There has been a never ending series of excuses to explain why the last prediction didn't come close to fruition other than the rather obvious reason......they got it wrong.....again. After all the scorn that was poured on those who questioned their original predictions, the constant backpedaling is amusing. Maybe warming will start again.........I don't know. It is increasingly clear, however, that the PHDs and PHD wannabees who for years have looked down their noses disdainfully at sensible questions don't know either. They just eat up a lot of grant money pretending they do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
The chutzpah of those who apologize for the carbon industry is not surprising--but amazing in its dishonesty. Now there is clap trap about heat storage with a claim that global warming has stopped, and if not, will only last a decade more. Lies.
I posted, some time ago, the research studies of a professor from Scripps aboiut the storage of heat in the oceans. The amount of heat stored has been quantified with some level of accuracy. In his analysis, the heat stored in the oceans to date, will affect the world climate for centuries.
To claim that the failure of a particular modeled scenario tips the entire scientific basis of global warming on its head is an act of charlatanry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Now there is clap trap about heat storage with a claim that global warming has stopped, and if not, will only last a decade more. Lies. |
Oh dear, the man who insists on scrupulous research didn't read the article before dismissing as lies the opinions of three scientists far better qualified than he. They said that the pause would last for a decade before warming recommences. This all due to to the natural cycle of ocean currents which apparently they know nothing about when making prior predictions. Wisely, this prediction has the caveat "....other impacts of climate change could upset the cycle, which is caused by variation in the salinity of the water as denser, saltier water sinks. Translation....we really don't know what's going to happen, but what ever does, it's the fault of climate change. No wonder Jenkins shoulders are shaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
