Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming

I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here. This is a subject which
requires serious debate, and firm adherence to scientific method.
Faith, emotion and excuse me, propaganda will not do.
No, widespread acceptance is not proof, regardless of the credentials
or peer status of those accepting.
Nor is proof in the gathering or display of data. Proof is different.
It is demonstrable, repeatable, and consistent.
As for my grip on reality Gentlemen, it's one thing to prove the
thermodynamics of CO2 in the lab, quite another to extrapolate the
results to the entire globe and follow by scrapping the internal
combustion engine (in case that's what we're really talking about).
Best wishes .............Dave

Dave wrote:

I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here. This is a subject which
requires serious debate, and firm adherence to scientific method.
Faith, emotion and excuse me, propaganda will not do.

Try empircism.

No, widespread acceptance is not proof, regardless of the credentials
or peer status of those accepting.

So far so good.

Nor is proof in the gathering or display of data. Proof is different.
It is demonstrable, repeatable, and consistent.

No, proof is absolute, as in mathematical.

As for my grip on reality Gentlemen, it's one thing to prove the
thermodynamics of CO2 in the lab,

Please feel free to point out where thermodynamics has been proven.

quite another to extrapolate the
results to the entire globe and follow by scrapping the internal
combustion engine (in case that's what we're really talking about).

Sure, we are talking about electrolysis and catalysis, and the
demonstrated circumvention of Carnot efficiency restrictions.

Once upon a time classical mechanics was 'proven' to be absolute.

Then came 1905. Now it's 2005. Heat engines are so passe'.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../electrol.html

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Mon, 28 Nov 05 11:08:41 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

(severely snipped)

3. It is accepted by science that GW is occurring and that humans are causing
it.

Could you please change that to "humans are aiding and abetting it"?
Before massive pollution and all the gassers, it was observed that the
earth has been warming its way out of an ice age. True, it was not
expected to happen at the speed that many scientists claim for the
human pollution added scenario, but the earth has run the fire / ice
cycle many times. Even humans, with our massive egos, cannot take
credit for ice ages nor for tropical Antartic climate before evolution
says primates were more than a vague possibility.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Cyli wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 05 11:08:41 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

(severely snipped)

3. It is accepted by science that GW is occurring and that humans are causing
it.

Could you please change that to "humans are aiding and abetting it"?

No.

That would be trying to sweep the human contribution under the rug, in
a pretense that things are basically "normal". The amount of climate
change has been massive and catastrophic already. The time period
before WWII was very mild. The greenhouse gases released by the total
war frenzy peaked in the 1950s and took two decades to descend back to
somthing which could be considered mild. Then the mid 1990s changed
climate in a way never seen or recorded before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy
1950 was the year for the most recorded storm intensity -- it still has
the record for most major hurricanes.

Here's the record in descending order, mildest first, strongest last,
group in five year periods...
ACE sum & annualized average in Cyclone Intensity order
263 five year sum ACE (1970-1974) 263/5 = 52.6 annual average
271 five year sum ACE (1990-1994) 271/5 = 54.2 annual average
332 five year sum ACE (1975-1979) 332/5 = 66.4 annual average
357 five year sum ACE (1980-1984) 357/5 = 71.4 annual average
396 five year sum ACE (1985-1989) 396/5 = 79.2 annual average
536 five year sum ACE (1955-1959) 536/5 = 107.2 annual average
545 five year sum ACE (1965-1969) 545/5 = 109 annual average
617 five year sum ACE (1960-1964) 617/5 = 123.4 annual average
684 five year sum ACE (1950-1954) 684/5 = 136.8 annual average
688 five year sum ACE (2000-2004) 688/5 = 137.6 annual average
793 five year sum ACE (1995-1999) 793/5 = 158.6 annual average

2005 = 225 ACE score. The "season" goes through November 30th
but all cyclones, even those rare ones in December are added to the
ACE of the year they happen. There is one more month before 2005
record book is closed.

If the preceding five years including 2005 are collected together:
2001 -- 106 15 9 4 Above average
2002 -- 66 12 4 2 Below average
2003 -- 175 16 7 3 Above average
(hyperactive)
2004 -- 225 14 9 6 Above average
(hyperactive)
2005 -- 225 23 13 7 Above average
(hyperactive)
797 five year sum ACE (2001-2005) (Current through
Delta).

We have established that there was never a hotter year than 1998 for
the corals in the seas.

This is not information which should be diluted by discussions of
glacially-slow (funny how that slogan became obsolete in our lifetime
-- now glaciers gallop) natural background climate change.

It's WRONG to shout "Fire" when there is none in a crowded theater, but
it is far WORSE to cry "No Fire" when there is one.

Before massive pollution and all the gassers, it was observed that the
earth has been warming its way out of an ice age. True, it was not
expected to happen at the speed that many scientists claim for the
human pollution added scenario, but the earth has run the fire / ice
cycle many times. Even humans, with our massive egos, cannot take
credit for ice ages nor for tropical Antartic climate before evolution
says primates were more than a vague possibility.

Totally false arguments. Humans are capable of impacting the
environment in massive ways. Before 1970 there were NO Dead Zones in
the oceans. In 1970 there was one knwn; in 1990 there were 75, in 2002
there were 150 of them.

Humans are causing species extinctions at a rate predicted to be 50,000
per year. These are permanent irrevokable changes.

It is false and fraudulent to play act that humans are powerless and
insignificant observers on a basically changeless world from generation
to generation. The Colorado River used to flow to the sea, in my
lifetime -- it may never do so again in humanities lifetime.

Don't pretend that your effects are not real.

From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article .com,
"Dave" wrote:
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact.

An explanation can never be a fact -- by definition, an explanation in science
is a theory (when accepted).

Gravity is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory.
Evolution is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory.

Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended.
While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more
relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual
(empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong
tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Coby Beck wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was
intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may
certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I
see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to
bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

Obviously nothing, since no 'fact' is ever supported by anything more than
collective opinion. The 'fact' of gravity is just a concession to empirical
observation and common opinion. Nobody really knows what it is or what
causes it ( see recent quantum theory speculations ). However, we call
gravity a 'fact' even though we cannot directly observe that it is constant
or universal.

The same problem(s) comes up when you claim the 'fact' that that house is
blue. The reality is that you just saw one side of the house and *inferred*
that the other sides were also blue based on the assumption that houses are
all one color. You cannot even be sure that what YOU see as 'blue' is the
same color as what everyone else sees as 'blue'. Nor do you even specify the
color precisely. What blue do you mean? Sky blue? Light blue? Kinda a
purplish blue?

To really specify the color you need to measure the wavelength of the light
reflected from the paint and that is science. The whole theory of color and
color perception is just a 'theory' so can you really call the house blue?
If you consider collective agreement by the facts and perceptions to be what
establishes 'facts' then scientific theories are 'facts'.

You can be wrong! You may have seen the house under sodium street lighting
and it is really not blue. But the standard of 'proof' for ordinary facts
are even lower than that for scientific facts. Ergo, A 'theory' is science
is a 'fact' as we understand reality. Those people who say otherwise ( like
Dave ) just show that they do not understand or respect scientific inquiry.
I suspect that it has something to do with jealousy of those who see clearer
and farther than they do.

On 28 Nov 2005 13:58:21 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote:

"Many of the climate models show warming
due to so called greenhouse gasses,
while other models show the climate cooling."

-- Capt. John

[Change to upper case mode to correct a BIG lie.]
FACT: THERE IS NO PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED
CLIMATE MODEL THAT SHOWS COOLING IN RESPONSE
TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS, NONE
WHATSOEVER. There is no model that indicates stasis.
ALL, YES EVERY. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED
CLIMATE MODELS SHOW WARMING IN RESPONSE
TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS.

IF YOU, CAPT. JOHN, HAVE A COUNTER EXAMPLE
YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO PUBLISH IT HERE.

i'm not disputing what you are saying, but isn't there some concern
that as the North Atlantic current becomes warmer, that thermohaline
circulation in the Atlantic would stop and arctic conditions would
spread south? at least until the oceans dealt with enough CO2 to
cause the conveyor to crank up again?

i'll gladly defer to anyone else on this...

"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
.. .
Dave wrote:
We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and
climate change,

You have the right to question the law of gravity as well. However, there
are more useful things to do with your time than complaining about facts.

as we should question everything which is pushed at
us as these are.

You have problems with reality, do you? Reality pushes at you only because
you reject it. Relax and enjoy.

It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven.

Ignorance of the term 'theory' shows that you do not have a background to
critise science. Theory is factual ( proven ). Hypothesis is speculative.

Widespread acceptance is not proof.

When the widespread acceptance includes the professional scientists who
are
directly studying the problem, yes it does. No other criteria for proof
other than widespread acceptance by those with the background and
education
to understand the data has ever been proposed as 'proof' in science.

Furthermore there are other more
likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as
contamination of the air and water.

Irrelevant to the issue. One truth does not drive out another. Please get
a
clue. The fact that you are trying 'diversion' speaks to your lack of
facts
or serious logic.



And why was the Kyoto pact developed by non-hard science people. PhD's in
sociology and other non-hard science's do not speak for a studied solution.
Man may be aiding the "Global Warming" but the big fusion engine in the sky
is a bigger contributor. Mar's has also gone in to a warming trend, it's
ice caps are melting quicker and sooner. And if you think we should believe
you because you throw in a few big words, it would help if you spelled them
correctly. In the late 1800's 20 miles of Glacier Bay, AK melted, and has
not refrozen. What did man do to cause this little warming trend? Not many
cars running around then. You have a theory and are trying to make your
prejudices fit the model. Bad science. I criticize your conclusion and
most likely your background. Do you have a degree in the physical sciences?