An Inconvenient Truth": Has Polar Bears Survived & Thrived?

[Andre]

Again that's not the message. The message is that things did not add up at all within the timeframe 20,000 - 6,000 years ago. Obviously, the termination with an abundance of high resolution data, compared to other glacial teminations, data are much more coarse. And, sequences are wrong, numbers don't add up meaning that many hypotheses are just wrong.

Remember the black swan hypothesis of Karl Popper. if your hypothesis is that all swans are white, it is fasified the moment that you see a black swan, no matter how many millions of white swans you have observed earlier. If we cannot add up the high resolution known ice volumes of the last glacial maximum with the high resolution sea level changes, we have found a black swan. It's as simple as that and then it's time to drop fixed ideas and start hypothesing again like this here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=153634

 

[Hcxc1runner]

Just asking a few innocent questions...

Is there data that points to a statistically significant increase in carbon dioxide levels, and temperature increase?

Is there data that shows a relationship between the two variables (CO2 levels and temperature increase)?

How are temperature levels measured, and what exactly are they measuring?
How precise and accurate are these methods?

How are sea levels measured?

Are carbon dioxide levels constant in the atmosphere?

I have a hard time believing that we have the ability to accurately detect a temperature increase of 0.? C over the past 30 or so years worldwide (can't remember the data that Al Gore refers to). The method with which data is collected over the last several years have changed, as technology has changed.


Thanks for your time
Hcxc1runner

 

[Andre]

Welcome, Hcxc1runner

You sure know to ask the right questions. I assume that you have only recently been confronted with the global warming hype for the first time. A few hundred specialists are working on those subject and of course forums answers are biased with the opinion of the answerer.

Let me give you a few tips. Do an advanced search on this forum, with search words "carbon" for any date in Earth science and you'll have some stuff to read. I hope you don't mind that I'm brief on your questions:

Is there data that points to a statistically significant increase in carbon dioxide levels, and temperature increase? Is there data that shows a relationship between the two variables (CO2 levels and temperature increase)?

There used to be a "hockeystick" with a r2 of 99+% between the two, however it has been demonstrated that is was a very ..errm.. *unscientific* graph here:.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm (fig 1 b)

There are several discussions about "noble cause corruption". Was it cheating or just bad science?

Glacial ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and isotopes, erroneousle believed to be depicting temperature, however the *temperature* is leading by 600 +/- 400 years during the last deglaciation. Global warmers assume a positive feedback, boosting the temperatures but obviously those have not studied the physics of positive feedback loops.

Finally, we have chemical CO2 measurement as of about 1816 AD up to about 1961 AD with wild oscillations which are not accepted by the IPCC and warmers, however with indeed some correlation. For the last 60 years we have anti correlation between ~1950-~1975AD, cooling temperatures with rising CO2 when the return to the ice age hype was at the top and then a positive correlation between ~1980 and 1998

How are temperature levels measured, and what exactly are they measuring?

There are three independent research facilities working on the compilation of all the world meterological stations and ship meteo data. Average daily and monthly temperatures are calculated per grid of some 5 degrees lattitude and longitude, I think.

See for instance Hansens lab:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Then there is the monthly satellite measurements for the lower troposphere:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

How precise and accurate are these methods?

That's a can of worms with big discussions everywhere. Two hot topics are correction for the Urban Heat Island effect and the reducing number of rural stations.

How are sea levels measured?

In the old days with the yardsticks in the harbours, corrected for geologic movements. Nowadays we have the satellites.

Are carbon dioxide levels constant in the atmosphere?

Definitely not, there is an annual wobble due to seasonal changes in sources and sinks, according to the ice cores, CO2 levels have been fluctuated between some 180 and 280 parts per million in the ice ages. However, it is aknowlegded that there are plenty of complications with the CO2 in the ice cores. Anther "proxy" are fossile leave stomata of certain species which are know to show variation in stomata density depending on CO2 levels and those show much more variation and higher levels.


According to the IPCC the CO2 levels started to rise gradually from around 1850 at 280 ppmv to nowadays 380 ppmv on the average. The earlier mentioned chemical measurements showed values between 1000 ppmv and 270 ppmv.

I hope it helps.

 

[Sehrish]

Global warming

I didn't knew about this movie until my science teacher told me. I got the movie last night and I am going to watch it now. I read the threads it seems like this movie is interesting. I usually don't watch Earth related movies not that I don't care about the planet I am just simply scared like what have we done to our planet. What makes me sad is that mostly people don't know about it. Maybe they do in Canada but third world countries have no clue because of high ration of uneducated people.
Anyways I will watch the movie and reply again and tell if this movie affected me or not.

 

[Mk]

Congratulations guys, this thread is getting hit number six for "An Inconvient Truth" on Google! However I don't know where it stand for "An Inconvenient Truth"

 

[Evo]

Congratulations guys, this thread is getting hit number six for "An Inconvient Truth" on Google! However I don't know where it stand for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Oh well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ

 

[Andre]

A critiique from our Kristen here

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

 

[Mk]

A critiique from our Kristen here

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

Actually it would be this There's a little g in there.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

 

[edward]

There have been several new pieces added to the global warming puzzle in the past few weeks.

It appears that there were large releases of CO2 from the oceans as the ice was melting and temperatures were rising after the last ice age.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510164044.htm

And:

The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean carbon "sink" - or reservoir - means that atmospheric CO2 levels may be higher in future than predicted.

These carbon sinks are vital as they mop up excess CO2 from the atmosphere, slowing down global warming.

The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

This effect had been predicted by climate scientists, and is taken into account - to some extent - by climate models. But it appears to be happening 40 years ahead of schedule.