Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Global Cooling?

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by drsarbes, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

  2. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Hi bill
    Thank you for the link.
    First, I find the terminology fairly revealing: a "pause" in the warming trend. Unless one has already come to a conclusion of what the future climate will be, how do you know it is a pause? Not how science works, is it.

    This reads like an experiment that had results different from the consensus prediction; now the experimenters are not only trying to explain why the results differed but also trying to convince everyone that , in fact, the predicted results will, or should be, or if we repeat it enough, have to agree with our predictions.

    The results just can't be true!!!

    Steve
    Btw...loved the La Niña explanation. Those were man made, correct?
     
  3. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    What a pantomime. There you are, in the eye of the storm, shouting that the storm, if there ever was one, is over and here are the rest of us crying wolf and each group shouting for the children in the audience to follow us.

    As the voices say to PC Atilla Rees after he has drunkenly urinated in his own helmet, "you'll be sorry for that in the morning".

    The question here is 'who will be sorry in the morning'?

    If those crying wolf have got it wrong the outcome is at worst loss of face. If the sceptics have got it wrong the outcome is at worst loss of humanity with multiplying manifestations of man's inhumanity to man before the climax. But we can rest assured that towards the end the pockets in a small number of men's shrouds will be filled with gold.

    Your right, worse things happen at sea.

    Bill
     
  4. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Eye of the storm?
    hmmmmm

    I do realize you WANT to believe in global warming, believe that man has finally caused enough damage through his greed and selfishness that the Earth itself is doomed.

    The question is why do feel the need?

    Why when faced with a much more optimistic (and may I add more realistic) alternative you still feel the overwhelming bonds of pessimism.

    Fish Creek, a small town just north of here, FINALLY achieved ice out on their part of Lake Michigan. The latest ever recorded. I'm sure you have a way of blaming this on Global Warming.

    Who will be sorry. Not sure…but whatever Planet Earth has in store for us as far as weather, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT.

    Steve
     
  5. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Here you go Steve,

    This is a slightly more comprehensive analysis of climate change in WI.

    http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/uploads/magnuson_climate_change_and_trout_in_wi_streams.pdf

    Though you've convinced me that your finger in the wind and unbridled 'optimistic realism' is the way to go.

    I wonder if that's how you live the rest of your life, eg no insurance policies; don't batten down the hatches when a hurricaine is forecast; drive through red lights. Somehow I don't think so?


    But I like your style - it's cold here so it must be cold everywhere.

    "We are not going to change it" and we are not going to try to change it are different things. One is bound in pessimism and the other is bound in optimism.

    But as the ostrich might say why change anything?

    Whatever. Just be sure to invest in some high factor sunscreen and use it daily even if it's not sunny?

    Have a good day.

    Bill
     
  6. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Truth be told, people, the answer is yes, and yes. Yes we are living in an upward climate change (has happened before many times - the rock record is full of it) - however we are also living in a Man made climate change - we have a double whammy. The geological analogy is Iceland; it is a piece of the Mid Atlantic ridge, which coincidentally happens to be over an oceanic hotspot - and is hence out of the water. The fact that we are getting warmer non-iatragenically (to choose an analogy close to home) does not excuse us from the shameful legacy that we are leaving our grandchildren. Rob
     
  7. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Man Made.......
    Shameful..........

    I'm not buying into it. For every "authority" on the subject who has determined that man can affect our weather, I can show you one who thinks the opposite. There is very very little real science involved here, as I've said before.

    The weather on Earth will be what it will be.

    The only thing we should be ashamed of is the financial debt we are leaving our grandkids, otherwise, I think they are very lucky indeed. How spoiled should be make them?

    Steve

    PS
    perhaps another thread is needed : The "dumbing" of the world's population.
     
  8. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    You need to choose your words more carefully. "Authority"? Most of the opinions we have here are from non-climatologists. This is analagous to me seeking therapeutic help from a podiatrist when I have cancer of the prostate. There is no argument - it is there in front of us.

    Again, when I was a geology student, we were asked at tutorial time to do a quick, rough and dirty calculation on how much carbon dioxide had been produced from fossil fuels since the industrial revolution. Then on the basis of this, what the CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be. I emphasize that this was a rough and dirty. This was 1985 - it should have been somewhere 18-20%, but actually was little different from what it had been since human time started. So where has it all gone? CO2 + H2O = H2+ + CO3- (excuse the lack of typing capability). The Carbonate dissociation equation - which any decent school kid knows, is the basis of alkalinity in our oceans. Now consult our old friend La Chatelier - and he will tell you from beyond the grave that it is nearing its end point; this will result in acidic oceanic changes. This will produce a catastrophe of biblical proportions. I presented this to my tutorial group in 1985 - and was laughed out of town. The first acidic changes were noted on the barrier reef three years ago. Still laughing? I don't think so.........................
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  9. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Rob:

    You should have written a book, been on talk shows, had you own celeb following!!!

    The "authority" statement stems from another thread I started on "experts".... Another story.

    If recall correctly, acid rain was going to decimate Canadian lakes in the early 70s. I still fish in northern Ontario every year. Walleye are healthy and still tasty.

    Planet Earth. Perhaps not as fragile as we were always taught.

    Steve
     
  10. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Steve,

    The reason that you can still fish successfuly in northern Ontario is because in the 70s governments world wide, listened to the scientists and acted to significantly reduce the levels of sulphur dioxide emissions and thus the levels of acid rain. Had the anti-bridage been as well organised then as it is now your fishing trips would be in vain. But the sceptics would still be saying that there was no reduction in the number or health of the fish and if there was it was a natural variation, that it certainly had nothing to do with increased sulphur dioxide levels (which are in fact good for induvuduals and the planet)and that it was all the fault of excessive government.

    It's not planet earth that's fragile it's the things that live on it that are fragile.

    [I"]You should have written a book, been on talk shows, had you own celeb following!!!"[/I]

    Where did that one come from Steve? It could be taken as an insult to Robb's scientific integrity.

    Bill
     
  11. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Steve - errrrr spot the obstructive argument...................... You will find it, right down and the bottom left hand corner, just next to your pen nib. Rob
     
  12. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    You should have written a book, been on talk shows, had you own celeb following!!!"

    Where did that one come from Steve? It could be taken as an insult to Robb's scientific integrity.

    ========

    No insult intended. haha In the 80s and still now most likely) certainly a cult following would have followed a best seller predicting the end of the world.

    ========

    Yes, fishing in Canada is very good. Amazing how quickly Government Control was able to turn that around. Astounding, really. Never knew Northern Ontario had ANY industry. Must have been flowing down from north...

    Pen nib???

    Just read an interesting article about the deserts' ability to absorb CO2 as the concentration increases. Perhaps our savior?

    In the final analysis gentlemen, I hope we all live long and healthy lives, our grandkids (I have 8) as well, and their children. No one is FOR pollution or killing the earths biosphere. We all want clean water and clean air.

    My rub with the entire climate change "science" is that, on BOTH sides of the isle, their are enormous political influences. How does one wade through the BS and prejudged "studies"? For the average Joe who has very very little faith in anything politicians have their hand in, I do not appreciate having rules and regulations applied to private business enterprises by government agencies (EPA,etc...) that have no elected officials and who's goals and agendas are in question.

    Back to work

    Steve
    (no pen nibs were hurt during the creation of this thread reply)
     
  13. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member


    "prejudged studies................" like many, media hype seems to be what floats to the surface. Thank you, learned colleague, for pointing out to Steve the chemical difference between sulphur and carbon in their dioxide compound.

    Be quite clear, I am no expert, I merely have a proper education in science, with a diploma in podiatry, an honours degree in Earth Sciences and evolutionary biology - and a doctorate in anatomy and palaeoanthropology. But what I do know about is scientific method - and obstructions such as the one you presented are the basis of most of the denial arguments. To answer the question about what happened to all that carbon dioxide with a statement about salmon in the Canadian outback and sulphur dioxide is fairly typical of the non-scientific claptrap that seems to front up to our newspages these days.

    I emphasise yet again that I am not a climateologist, but I do know what science is. Rob
     
  14. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Well I have degrees as well, that is not the point. It is not YOU vs ME.

    My point, plain and simple, is just about everything I hear or read pertaining to Global Climate Change seems to have a political agenda attached to it.

    Again, there are experts in this field.
    They all seem to have opinions.
    They do not all agree.
    This seems to be science by majority rule.

    I have never seen something as important as climate change and it's consequences be so muddied in politics.

    That's all. There is nothing personal here. I am merely pointing out the fact that, in my opinion, ANYTHING having to do with climate Change is tainted by politics. SO, we really do not have SCIENCE.

    I'm not sure how many different ways I can state this. BUT...I'll keep trying.

    Steve
     
  15. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    "Thank you, learned colleague, for pointing out to Steve the chemical difference between sulphur and carbon in their dioxide compound."

    Just noticed this. Another dig?

    It is simply amazing the amount of condescension and patronizing that goes on with any attempt at a meaningful climate change dialog.

    Steve
     
  16. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Steve, you keep saying it, could you elaborate and give examples of same, thanks, mark
     
  17. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Steve, you keep saying it, could you elaborate and give examples of same, thanks, mark

    Really? Maybe in Australia Climate Change media stories and studies have less spin on them...maybe...but in the USA it's almost a joke to discuss Global Warming (unless you happen to be in a liberal urban environment where is it politically incorrect not to agree with Global Warming and man's involvement) -

    For the rest of us Global Warming is a punch line .... not science.

    Save us both a lot of time...just google GLOBAL WARMING and take a look at who's sites come up.

    Well..I think we're beating a dead horse here.
    Have another topic?

    Bigfoot? Global obesity? Global starvation? The dumbing of the earth's population? Do STJ implants really work?
    Pick one.

    Steve
     
  18. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Again no substance to your post.
    I have noted the journal article that claims “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science”, interesting Steve, i kept thinking of you whilst reading it, mark
     
  19. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    [QUOTE=I do not appreciate having rules and regulations applied to private business enterprises by government agencies (EPA,etc...) that have no elected officials and who's goals and agendas are in question.
    )[/QUOTE

    Who should apply rules and regulations to private business enterprises Steve?

    Bill
     
  20. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Who should apply rules and regulations to private business enterprises ???
    The question is not who should APPLY them but who should formulate them and how are they being interpreted.

    Well.....legislation is the way laws are created by those elected to office......by us. Certain agencies have authority to pass various rules and enforce those laws pertaining to them, however, historically, any "rule" that will have a major impact (at least on the American public in the US of A) will have legislative input or authority starting with a bill and going forward through the legislative process.

    The EPA, OSHA and the IRS for instance (here) have normally had some leeway however they (IMHO) are overstepping their authority and original intent of their agency.

    When I was chairperson of the Podiatry Examining Board under the State of Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (Rules and Regs back then) we had authority to not only initiate legislation but formulate rules that did not need to go through the legislative process. We never took advantage of this position.


    STEVE
     
  21. TPeterson

    TPeterson Welcome New Poster

    It saddened me to see that this thread now has more replies than, e.g., this one. The latter also shows much evidence of individual biases but is far more relevant to podiatry, IMO.

    Regarding the OP's complaint that there is at least some disagreement within the climatologist community about AGW, I would point to the controversy in many of the threads here (e.g., the one I mentioned) that gives plenty of evidence of professional disagreements. Does that prove that podiatry lacks "science"?
     
  22. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    TPeterson, I have read your post several times, yet am still uncertain what it is that you are suggesting; perhaps you would post again.
     
  23. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  24. TPeterson

    TPeterson Welcome New Poster

    Hi. The main suggestion boils down to this: Since there are already so many places on the Internet where one can read raging debates on AGW between non climate scientists, does it really need this one too?

    The minor, non-suggestion point was regarding my surprise that any health professional could have any objections to a non-unanimous collective view on any scientific matter as complex as global climate. Just as in medicine, we're going to be stuck with making hard decisions before we have "all" the data. The only difference is that we only have one patient in this case so the consequences of getting it very wrong are potentially catastrophic for everyone.
     
  25. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    CRAIG?
    What? I thought NewsBot published the abstracts of peer reviewed journal articles not "guest essay"s from shonky misquoting nobodies in a far right wing blog site.
     
  26. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    HEY

    I'm more than willing to move onto the Bigfoot debate.
    If there are BigFoot (what is the plural bigfeet or bigfoots or just Bigfoot ???) I assume they are all shedding by now.

    THAT is a joke!

    For the record...I am a NON BELIEVER.

    Steve
     
  27. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I cannot support any argument for a bigfoot in North America - simply because there was no hominoid evolution in North america. There was, however, in Asia.one of my climbing hero's saw what he believed to be a Yeti (shall we say AKA bigfoot?) in the Annapurna basin in 1970. This was Don Whillans, and I believe him. The most plausible explanation - if he did indeed see one, is that of a living fossil. Gigantapithecus would seem to fit the picture well. Living fossils are a well recognised and well understood issue. Examples (sp?) are the Coelocanth (fish, Indian Ocean) and the Sphenodon (reptile, New Zealand). But that is all speculation.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  28. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Hi Robb

    "no hominoid evolution in North america"

    My ex wife is living proof of this!

    Steve
     
  29. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

  30. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    27% of Americans do not believe global warming is occurring and more than half that do accept a global warming trend do not think it's caused by man.

    29% of Americans believe in Bigfoot. (I think almost as many claim to have seen one)

    Sick Bunny????
    Hmmmmmm

    So tell me........
    How do you disproof that Bigfoot exists?
    I think some of the same scientists who study Global Climate trends moonlight looking for Bigfoot.

    Steve
     
  31. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

  32. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Most probably the same people!

    Steve too many important issues in this world like AGW to care what the crazy 27-29% think, all the best, mark
     
  33. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    I knew you would degrade those with an opinion other than yours.

    Some of those are climate scientists, you know, the most objective people on our planet ( yes, tongue in cheek)

    I find I have a day off...think I'll enjoy the outdoors. Almost 65 degrees F today....a bit cool for this time of year but I'll try not to complain because apparently the heat is coming soon.

    Steve
     
  34. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Lest you forget. http://www.theage.com.au/tv/environment/acid-ocean-5000290.htm


    It was 1985 when I first predicted this and was laughed out of tutorial class

    And please, given the percentage figures above in previous posts a little less than 50% of USA believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    Tell you what? I am glad that I am nearly 60 and on the way out, cos God knows what we have left for our children.

    Forget what you want to believe, and start believing what is real.

    Rob
     
  35. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

  36. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Ocean surface 0.16 degrees warmer in past 10 years.
    Wow, a literal heat wave! I'd like to know what the margin of error is.

    What I see....the lake in my back yard has been frozen for 3 weeks. I've never seen it freeze that early. Went to the football game last Sunday night.... It was 10 degrees F. We froze our asses off.

    Global warming. Whatever.

    Steve
     
  37. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Rob:

    I haven't been on this site for a while. I just saw your post, the link is apparently too old to work.

    "Forget what you want to believe, and start believing what is real.".... Exactly my point. People WANT to believe we are not only all going to either burn up or drown, but it's also OUR FAULT. We are overcome by global blame o mania. It's that 0.16 degrees over the past 10 years....it's frying our brains.

    can you redo the link if you have time.

    Thanks

    Steve
     
  38. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    There is nothing new to add to this debate, mainly because there is no debate, only obstructive arguments from those who wish to disbelieve.

    The facts are overwhelming and I have said all that I have to say on this earlier in the thread. Just in case you missed the point: YES we are in a natural upward cycle. The rock record is full of these. By way of example and anecdote, Danish "Vikings" were growing crops in Greenland in the 1400's. However, YES, we are also in a Man made upward cycle also, which is giving us the double whammy. I demonstrated the change in the carbonate dissociation shift in sea water as a geology student 30 years ago, and using Le Chatelier's Principle, demonstrated that it could not move much further, and thus predicted acidification of oceanic waters. I was laughed out of town in 1983...............

    Since the end point in the carbonate shift is now there, or very nearly there, atmospheric CO2 will rise much faster than it has since the start of the industrial revolution.

    Finally, as for your comment re: experts in an earlier part of the thread, we would do well to remember that being an expert in one area, does not make one and expert in another. None, and I mean none, of the change deny "experts" are bona fide climatologists.

    There are parallels to this in many "debates:, which are actually not debates at all; the immediate ones that come to mind is the so-called creationist debate, or perhaps the non-vaccination debate. The latter is heaving with self-appointed experts, brimming with Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but that is another story.................... Rob

    PS: that link was to a story in The Age - a Melbourne paper, but it is long defunct
     
  39. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    "There is nothing new to add to this debate, mainly because there is no debate, only obstructive arguments from those who wish to disbelieve."

    NO DEBATE!!!!! THAT is funny.
    I assume you are being sarcastic, do not understand the scientific method, are in denial, or are a lemming. I'll pick sarcasm since I do not wish to get personal.

    In any event. Stating something is correct and that there will be no further discussion does not actually make it correct; sounds a bit like the dark ages. All I was asking for was the link that was out dated.

    I'll let you have the last word (since I doubt you will let my comments go unanswered) since, as you say, whats the point? It's all proven, it is what it is, no need to study the issue more. Done. We're doomed. Our fault.

    Hmmmmmmmmm. It's hard to even type that without laughing at the preposterousness.

    Steve

    BTW: when you wrote "..a little less than 50% of USA believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis." you never said which half were correct. No debate there either I'm sure. Done. Proven. Fact. Futile to even talk about it. Sorry I even brought it up. What was I thinking? Again...whatever you say I'm sure it's correct and irrefutable.

    Can I kiss your ring sometime?
     
Loading...

Share This Page