New CC studies, for those interested.

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:37 am

This is why thers is such a huge debate over it too. There are many differences between global warming, and climate change. Most of the world seems to be warming generaly, but when you look at europe over the last few years, namley the UK, they are definetly getting COLDER. WHen you talk to people from england that are over 50 years old, they tell you of stories where the summers are hot ( well relitivley), sunny and stories of sunburn:S

I dont think its global warming, but I do belive the climate is changing. Stronger weather patterns, less rain in some areas, more in others. Plants are already moving up mountain slopes to get more cool air, corals and other sensitive plants are retreating further underwater. IF things arent changing, then why are there all of a sudden state sized ice shelves preaking off of the ice sheets? Not to mention the polar ice sheet is shrinking.

The thing that lots of us dont realise, is that the planet goes warm and cool every few thousand years. We should be cooling right now, if things were generaly staying the same, or "normal", but we generaly arent. There has been no real debate on the fact that its changing, or warming, but once again, its the cause that is the real debate. We seem incapible of thinking that we have something to do with it, when more and more evidence is showing a correlation between an increase in Co2 emmisions, and general warming trends. The bottom line is, the climate has changed before, without out us even being around. A few hundred million years ago, the earth was one giant ice ball. During the time of the dinosaurs, the climate was WAY warmer, with higher amounts of C02 we have now. During the midevil period, europe was on average 3C colder then it is today.

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:46 am

Humans have been through climate change many times in our history. 150 000 years ago in africa ( i believe this is the right date), there is thought to have been only 10 000 hominids left ( our branch). Climate change cause africa to to heat up, and dry. Our species were literaly prisoners in a few random oasis before the climate changed, and africa became a vast savannah.

12 000 years ago, after the last interglacial period, europe was under glaciation for the most part, and the climate in the black sea/ middle east region was dry and colder. When the climate changed again, africa dried up in 100 years. In north america, the last ice damn burst, relaseing trillions of tons of fresh water into the ocean, causing a massive flood to seperate the UK from europe, and flood the mediterranian sea, and also create the black sea as we see it today. This release of fresh water cause a mini ice age in europe only for a few hundred years. After it warmed up, farming was created.

Mabey something soemwhere in our psychys, we remember then climate shifts? Its been proven that subconsiously, we fear snakes, reptiles and insects, because at one point in our evolution our ancistors were food for these animals. Its the same adaptation we used to "remember" the right foods to eat, or feeling comfertable in a savannah type enviroment ( most of our yards are savannah, a few trees here and there, with large spans of short grass). Mabey we fear the change of climate so much, that part of us totaly wishes to disregard it?

/

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:05 am

TimMAz6 wrote:I agree that the GW theory is generally presented as 'fact'. Scientists and the news media need to do a better job presenting this data as a theory and not as fact.

I'm not very impressed with the prediction. Our global temps are lower than the lowest prediction. 2011 global temps through february are +0.0C.

Not on CC, but you have to be careful calling something a fact vs. a theory. A theory is a scientifically validated explanation of a given set of data. In science only mathematics have the luxury of 'proving' an idea. This is opposed to a hypothesis which is a proposed, but not tested, explanation for a given phenomenon. You still this is invalid argument given against evolution ("Evolution is JUST a theory")... Well, I'd say (and so would any credible scientist, presented with the data) that the theory of evolution is certainly correct. It has been subjected to 130 years of consistent testing and has passed every test.

Some other theories:
The Big Bang Theory
The Theory of Gravity
The Shape of the Earth
Climate Change Theory (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.635/full , The theory explains the observed temperature trends (warming) are human caused. An alternate would be that the observed warming is not due to human influence. An easily disproven theory would be that there has been no warming.)
Plate Tectonics
Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Atomic theory

More reading (I know, wikipedia is not a good source, but it is useful for simple explanations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:31 am

Paul,
in class, I drop an eraser. That it is falls is a fact; "gravity" is a theory to account for why it fell.
And not, by the way, as robust a theory as GW/CC....

As for additional theories for your list, my havorite is HIV/AIDS. AIDS is a fact; HIV as a cause is a theory. Former South Africa president Mbeki argued for years that AIDS was caused by poverty and that Africa needed more deveopment aid. He had two claims against the HIV theory: 1) it was premised on racist assumptions about African sexuality; 2) it was part of a conspiracy to let European and US pharmaceutical companies sell expensive drugs to poor African countries.

This article in Forbes (a conservative/right-wing magazine) raises an interesting question: whether Mbeki should be charged with crimes against humanity. I think you see where this is going in the present context

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/08/mbeki- ... choen.html
--Erik
P.S. this Forbes article links to the Harvard study. Is it too much to ask that we give reliable sources, given that none of us are experts?

TimMAz6 · Post by **TimMAz6** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:41 am

The IPCC removed the medieval warm period. One must question their motives in this change. The current temp ramp up sure looks much worse without the medieval warm period.

<img src=http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/ ... dieval.jpg>

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:08 am

Wow, how to they expect to even make a somewhat accutate prediction when you omit something as profound as the medieal period...... If thats the case why dont they disregard the last 20 years, because its doesnt fit with the normal climate pattern?

IN science isnt "fact" relivitve to a certain point? A lot of things that were "fact" have changed dramaticaly. IT was fact that the earth was flat. IT was fact that god put is here. It was fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Sure there are definelty things that have generaly havnt changed since weve discovered them, but have come more clear, such as physics and quantum theory, which help to explain eachother, especialy when you add string theory. to say something is a theory, leaves more open to change. IT doesnt seem as final as saying " so and so is fact, this is how it is"

Part of that is our fault, lots take almsot everything that is said in news or by scientists as fact, without actualy investigating it ourselves. On the other hand, when we see new "facts" that shatter our current paradigm, we usualy totoaly disregard it. A good example is chlorine in our water supply. A group of scientists led by some woman discovered, and had more then enough evidence to proove chlorine lowers sperm count, and decreases brain function, yet she was fired and has not been able to get any grants for work.

I think thats the thing too paul. Just look at the facts stated, and research those facts. You dont have to be a scientist to reaserch, as long as you can back up your facts with enough well percieved evidence.

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:14 am

Jesse,
go for it and report back to us:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Tim: sources?
--Erik
Edit: Jesse, let me help you get started. Begin with Box 6.4 in this part
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... html#6-6-1
then read other parts as needed to help you understand that section.

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:21 am

This is how I see it:

Theres more then enough evidence to say that the climate is changing ( generaly most people way warming). There is no real argument about that. Like ive said the real agument is the reasons why, and how. Even a bit of common sence can figure some things out.

The climate is generaly warming, since the beginning of the industrial revolution. As far as Im aware, this is a generaly accepted point, or at least well researched. Almost everything we use that is motorized or industrialized emits carbon dioxide. There are billions of cars alone on the roads, and many dont have any ommision standards at all ( cars in china and India for example). Not to mention power plants. ITs safe to say that we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere without any reagard as to the effects. Carbon dioxide as beel labeled a greenhouse gas for a long time. We know that an excess of it in the atmosphere causes heat to stay in the atmosphere, rather then drift our into space.

Now what is the planets best way of removing carbon dioxide? Trees and plants. The forests removed the bulk of the carbon dioxide that the animals and earth release ( of course precipitation, and the ocean plays a part as well ). What do we have less then half of now? Forests.

Who created cars? Who burns fossil fuels? Who cuts down the forests?? We do. To say we have nothing to do with climate change is naive, old school thinking. To say its totaly because of us, is just as naive i think. I think if anything, its a naturaly occuring warming trend, that our burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests is enhancing...

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:22 am

Ive been doing it for 20 years eric

And please please its JESSE no "I", thats the girls spelling

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:25 am

Paul Ont wrote:I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine...

Why are they like him, I dont think so. He showed a broader range of weather patterns, weather past and showed there has been weather patterns similar to what we are having today (without man caused carbon). He did not try and hide that the weather has been warming or that it would not do harm if it kept warming, he simply said the weather we are seeing today is nothing unusual if you look at the weather from the past.

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:33 am

canadianplant wrote:Who created cars? Who burns fossil fuels? Who cuts down the forests?? We do. To say we have nothing to do with climate change is naive, old school thinking. To say its totaly because of us, is just as naive i think. I think if anything, its a naturaly occuring warming trend, that our burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests is enhancing...

I agree.

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:49 am

DesertZone wrote:
Paul Ont wrote:I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine...

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver.

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

For the record, I am a PhD (c) and I think that monoculture is fine. It is perfectly all right with me if my bacterial samples are a monoculture on their plate, or in solution!

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:08 am

[quote="Paul Ont"][quote="DesertZone"][quote="Paul Ont"]I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine... [/quote]

PS. Show me one PHD that that has said monoculture is fine. Of cource there can be exeptions for everything. A city is more or less a monoculture of humans, are works well for our us. Even though I support backyard wildlife programs, it will never be a good idea to reintroduce bison to downtown Denver.

[/quote]

You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

For the record, I am a PhD (c) and I think that monoculture is fine. It is perfectly all right with me if my bacterial samples are a monoculture on their plate, or in solution![/quote]

And I'm trying for monoculture in my palm seed starting trays.

For the record, my PhD is in "environmental science" and while I do not do CC research, I apply it in my studies and teach it. If anyone has really good sources I can have my students discuss, please share them.

I'm sorry if I came across as grumpy above. We are somewhat cold today, when I had a day off I hoped to use tidying up the palm garden and putting away winter protection stuff. Puts me in a bad mood.

--Erik

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:17 am

Thanks for the link Eric.... id rather read stuff like that then most novels

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:44 am

Paul Ont wrote: For the record, I am a PhD

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:54 am

Paul Ont wrote:You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.

Why what should I expect from them? So if you get hired by a privite firm we cant trust you either? The Gov hires privite firms all the time to do research and contracts.

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:06 am

[quote="DesertZone"][quote="Paul Ont"]You expect too much from a lot of hired scientists.
[/quote]

Why what should I expect from them? So if you get hired by a privite firm we cant trust you either? The Gov hires privite firms all the time to do research and contracts.

[/quote]

Aaron,
since I've already acknowledged I'm grumpy today (about the cold weather), can I ask you to be explicit?
Specifically, are you accusing Paul and I of being paid shills for (e.g.) Chinese solar power companies?
(Now you know where we got those really cool Trachy seeds from....)
Seriously, I am tired of the conspiracy/"hoax" rhetoric. If I'm guilty, and my senator Inhofe is correct that I am part of a "hoax", ask Sen. Inhofe to call the local cops. Despite the fact that this has already been to the U.S. supreme court. --Erik

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:10 am

If I get hired by a private firm, I hope that I can maintain my integrity... I'll be lucky to get hired at all, truth be told!

Government funded research, though, is not the same as research done by a company in search of profits. If someone is doing research funded by oil-companies, and they specifically pick out abnormal trends or even falsify data (this does happen in legitimate research too, just look at the recent news about the link between vaccines and mental health, which was a major scandal), it is quite different than a government giving money to a research firm. There is a bias when you are getting paid by a company to specifically find x INSTEAD of y (or to pick certain data to make it look like you found x instead of y)... Rather than a contract which is awarded to find out whether there is a link between x and y.

FYI- My funding comes directly from the university which employs me. Our lab is supported by grants from both the University and the government. We are free to spend the money as we see fit, as long as it is pursuant to the goals of the research stated on our grant applications.

I need to get writing here. Though I must say procrastinating is quite a bit easier!

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:28 am

TerdalFarm wrote: Aaron,
since I've already acknowledged I'm grumpy today (about the cold weather), can I ask you to be explicit?
Specifically, are you accusing Paul and I of being paid shills for (e.g.) Chinese solar power companies?
--Erik

Absoluty not, I'm not accusing Paul or you of anything.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:32 am

Paul Ont wrote:If I get hired by a private firm, I hope that I can maintain my integrity... I'll be lucky to get hired at all, truth be told!

You'll do good, keep trying.

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:37 am

[quote="DesertZone"][quote="Paul Ont"]If I get hired by a private firm, I hope that I can maintain my integrity... I'll be lucky to get hired at all, truth be told!
[/quote]

You'll do good, keep trying.

[/quote]

If I can lighten the tone...
my fantasy is to be a "biostitute" for a palm oil plantation scheme. Wouldn't that be the life?

In reality, back to palm protection. Thought I was done with this

--Erik

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:41 am

Paul Ont wrote:Government funded research, though, is not the same as research done by a company in search of profits. If someone is doing research funded by oil-companies, and they specifically pick out abnormal trends or even falsify data (this does happen in legitimate research too, just look at the recent news about the link between vaccines and mental health, which was a major scandal), it is quite different than a government giving money to a research firm. There is a bias when you are getting paid by a company to specifically find x INSTEAD of y (or to pick certain data to make it look like you found x instead of y)... Rather than a contract which is awarded to find out whether there is a link between x and y.

I don't know how it is in Canada, but here any research done for eviro oil drilling is all over looked by the gov. All the research is looked over by the Gov. and is given the ok by the Gov. And if you do much work with the Gov and I am sure you will, you find out that nothing goes easy with the Gov. They have the last say and nothing passes without thier ok. Trust me.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:43 am

TerdalFarm wrote: If I can lighten the tone...
my fantasy is to be a "biostitute" for a palm oil plantation scheme. Wouldn't that be the life?

--Erik

That would be awesome.

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:51 am

Did I post this picture here yet? African oil-palm plantation in Costa Rica. I could not believe the extent of the oil palm plantations nor the amount of work that goes in to keeping the palms in good shape (pesticides, trimming, ensuring ther are no weeds around the base of the palms, etc. etc.).

<a href="http://travel.webshots.com/photo/221110 ... jTAx"><img src="http://inlinethumb44.webshots.com/43691 ... 600Q85.jpg" alt="DSCN0978"></a>

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:58 am

A palm fantasy is a sign you two are getting older

Thanks for posting that photo, Paul, the high density is frankly surprising.

The sheer number of "consumer products" that contain palm oil is staggering.
It's in everything but dog food...wait...I'd better read that label.

Barb

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:00 am

Paul,
no, I don't think you've put that photo up here yet.
This industry has not YET gotten to Belize.
I saw massive amounts of it in Nigeria when I lived there. Mind-boggling. Like corn in Iowa.
--Erik

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:03 pm

God that is nice... is climate change so bad, concidering we can mabey grow stuff like that up here ??

CTPalm · Post by **CTPalm** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:18 pm

lucky1 wrote:A palm fantasy is a sign you two are getting older

Thanks for posting that photo, Paul, the high density is frankly surprising.

The sheer number of "consumer products" that contain palm oil is staggering.
It's in everything but dog food...wait...I'd better read that label.

Barb

I know!

I make candles with wax made from palms. None of the nasty fuel smell/soot like from regular petroleum candles.

Paul

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:06 pm

candles with wax made from palms

Shhhhh...your palms will hear.

Cool hobby, wall to wall candles at all the fairs here.

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:54 am

Jesse,
I have a dark dream that GMO oil palms will be developed that can grow near the oil refineries in Louisiana, Houston and Corpus. And then the same technology could be applied to the palms we grow for our hobby....
CT, can you share the directions for palm candles? That sounds like fun. --Erik

CTPalm · Post by **CTPalm** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:01 am

Erik,

Just a warning, the candle making can also be very addictive and expensive. Haha. But you can buy palm wax bulk from wholesalers. Here is a link to a company that sells to everyone, and they sell everthing needed to make candles. They also have all kinds of instructions for different types of candles and waxes. They sell everything you need to make candles. Good luck!

http://www.naturesgardencandles.com/

Paul

PalmsNorth.com

New CC studies, for those interested.

Palm Wax Candles

Who is online