Global warming: truth or propaganda?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeffrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
'I am convinced, as I said on a similar thread 3-4 months ago, with very similar arguments being put forward, that global warming is happening. And that we have a moral imperative to change our lifestyles accordingly.

There do seem to be plenty of good reasons to adopt a more environmentally responsible lifestyle, even if you are not convinced by global warming:
  1. The world’s resources are limited. … and far too many urban and suburban dwellers are dependent on cars in the first place:
Now, surely if we take all that (and there are other arguments - loss of biodiversity for example), and then (again, for the sake of argument) concede there’s a 30/40% that global warming is happening too, surely there is less to be lost, and a great deal to be gained by becoming more eco-friendly? And surely, given the odds, we should at least be trying to change our lifestyles, rather than running the risk of being accused in years to come of fiddling while Rome burns? And surely, even above all that, we have this beautiful, magnificent, breathtaking creation that God has gifted us, and shouldn’t we be looking after it, rather than simply using it up as a commodity?

Can anyone honestly say that, even if global warming is propaganda, decreasing our dependency on cars and fossil fuels isn’t at least a good aspiration?
Global warming IS happening … albeit at the rate of 1 degree per century, but not evenly. It has been going on … unevenly … for a hundred years … actually since the Little Ice Age.

There is absolutely no evidence, however, that man is responsible for ANY of the global warming.

The current controversy is a kind of abuse of the English language. The accurate scientific term is “anthropogenic global warming”. Which means: “man-made global warming”.

And there is no evidence that any such thing exist.

We, humans, have absolutely no idea what the “ideal” climate or temperature is for the Planet Earth.

If we accept the Kyoto limitations, then we will have to just about shut down U.S. industry, with massive unemployment. It’s not just reducing gasoline consumption by 10% or some such number or embracing fluorescent lights.

The idea that natural resources are “limited” or “finite” is a false analogy. The Earth is 7,000 miles in diameter and we have scarcely explored the top mile of the crust. There are valid theories that the amount of petroleum, for example, is virtually limitless. There are enough natural resources to last billions of years. Until the sun burns out.

The Club of Rome a couple of decades ago did some serious computer modeled projections that we would run out of natural resources within 20 years. Their projections were totally blown. Totally false. False alarms. Got to be very careful about false alarms.

For some reason, saying that we need to save the Earth by using less stuff makes us feel virtuous. It may have some validity in terms of Christian sacrifice; however, it has absolutely no scientific validity in terms of “saving the planet”.
 
Can anyone honestly say that, even if global warming is propaganda, decreasing our dependency on cars and fossil fuels isn’t at least a good aspiration?
I honestly believe the free market will take care of the dependency on cars and fossil fuels. At some point the cost of fuel becomes too high and new alternatives are discovered. In Europe, a plain old Jeep Cherokee is marketed as a luxury vehicle. This hysteria over running out of oil…the tipping point as they call it…is chicken-little-ish simply because it completely discounts the entrepreneurial spirit of the American inventor. If there is a need to be filled and a buck to be made, someone will find a way to invent it and get it to market. Whether we conserve oil or lavishly consume it doesn’t change the fact that it’s always been a finite resource…so whether we solve the problem of what fuel to use next today or 500 years from now (depending upon when the oil runs out) doesn’t change the fact that the problem eventually has to get solved.
 
The “abiogenic” theory … aka the “Western” hypothesis … has generally favored the idea that petroleum on earth is a fossil fuel formed as the result of the deaths of early animal and plant life when the primordial seas dried up. This hypothesis is consistent with the idea that peak conventional petroleum productivity, followed by increasing costs and then lack of availability of transportation fuel, are likely near-term events (within about 20 years if we disregard the enormous supply opportunities associated with shale-oil recovery, tar-sands oil, and other not yet widely used supply sources).

The opposing view to this scenario is now generally referred to as the Russian-Ukranian (R-U) Theory … according to which chemical syntheses in the upper reaches of the earth’s mantle have been and continue to be formed. According to this theory, petroleum is NOT a fossil fuel, but rather a renewable resource of great abundance at as of now difficult-to-reach or inaccessible depths.

After largely ignoring the R-U studies for more than 50 years, a paper in August 2002 by J.F. Kenney and V.A. Kutcherov, N.A. Bendellani and V.A. Alekseev “The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures: VI. The Thermodyamic Stability of the Hydrogen-Carbon System: The Genesis of Hydrocarbons and the Origin of Petroleum”.

In 2004, seven authors including D.R. Herschback nobel laureate in chemistry] confirmed the part of the R-U claims relating to methane (CH4) forming at the conditions of high pressures and temperatures prevailing near the earth’s mantle.

January-February 2006: “American Scientist”: Roald Hoffmann (another Nobel Laureate) wrote “Old Gas, New Gas”.

Basically, under very high temps and pressures, mantle rock breaks down and produces hydrogen and then to methane and then to petroleum and natural gas.

Also look up work by SS. Penner, L. Icerman, N.A. Krayushkin, E.B. Chekaliuk, and popular authors such as Thomas Gold and Jerome Corsi.

Basically, under the R-U theory, petroleum and gas are formed 100 km down in the earth and it gradually trickles up through cracks into the known rock formations at more accessible depths. This phenomenon explains why oil fields that were thought to be exhausted continue to produce worthwhile quantities of oil.

Anyway, I have provided a lot of leads. So anyone who is seriously interested will have some places to look.

An easy place to look for further resources is to Google “ddp oism” and contact DDP to obtain a DVD of Penner’s and Corsi’s talks.
I honestly believe the free market will take care of the dependency on cars and fossil fuels. At some point the cost of fuel becomes too high and new alternatives are discovered. In Europe, a plain old Jeep Cherokee is marketed as a luxury vehicle. This hysteria over running out of oil…the tipping point as they call it…is chicken-little-ish simply because it completely discounts the entrepreneurial spirit of the American inventor. If there is a need to be filled and a buck to be made, someone will find a way to invent it and get it to market. Whether we conserve oil or lavishly consume it doesn’t change the fact that it’s always been a finite resource…so whether we solve the problem of what fuel to use next today or 500 years from now (depending upon when the oil runs out) doesn’t change the fact that the problem eventually has to get solved.
 
Not to change the subject, but what ever happened to the hole on the ozone layer? Has it been sewn up? I haven’t heard anything about it in years.
I can remember when THAT was going to be the death of us all.
 
Comparing the way Al Gore lives with his pronouncements I wouldn’t trust him on any matter. Follow the money. Watch how much he makes with his popular campaign. Find out how much his spends on his own opulant life style.

He is a consummate shister who would make PT Barnum blush.

CDL
 
Quoting directly from a post I made in May:

'I am convinced, as I said on a similar thread 3-4 months ago, with very similar arguments being put forward, that global warming is happening. And that we have a moral imperative to change our lifestyles accordingly.

I am also convinced that many people here do not believe that, and so I’m not trying to start that argument.

HOWEVER

There do seem to be plenty of good reasons to adopt a more environmentally responsible lifestyle, even if you are not convinced by global warming:
  1. The world’s resources are limited. We are consuming them at a faster rate. The waste that we produce is filling more and more landfills. We save green land from becoming landfill if we reduce the waste we produce. We also make ourselves less dependent on limited resources when we use those resources wisely.
  2. The increased dependency on cars creates many problems. While not knocking SUV for rural dwellers (my uncle, a farmer, has one, with barbed wire and bailing twine in the back!) far too many urban and suburban dwellers drive them, and far too many urban and suburban dwellers are dependent on cars in the first place:
  • increased pedestrians and public transport use makes city streets safer - the best way to beat urban crime is to get people using urban space.
  • there has been a marked increase in asthma, particularly among children, directly linked to car fumes in urban areas (and other pollutants).
  • fewer people walking and cycling has had an impact on our waistlines and our health - less car use and more walking would improve our health.
  • the lack of good public transport impacts most on the most vulnerable, and those who cannot afford a car. Declining public transport increases the gap between the haves and the have nots. If more people used it, it would become more financially viable, and therefore better. Public transport can also be a real community builder and reduce social isolation, particularly for older people.
  • a child hit by a SUV in a traffic accident has a much higher chance of fatality/serious injury than a child hit by a smaller car. Also, a particular problem of ‘school run’ SUVs is that it is more difficult for the driver to see smaller children. They’re safer for the kids inside the car, but much more dangerous for the kids outside the car.
  1. I wonder about what an increasingly ‘throw away society’ says to our children? The idea of using something until it’s done, of making most use of our resources, of not having a new everything, does not help them value other parts of life. Fixing a fridge/television/jumper rather than buying a new one helps the environment AND helps us live lives of Christian simplicity.
Now, surely if we take all that (and there are other arguments - loss of biodiversity for example), and then (again, for the sake of argument) concede there’s a 30/40% that global warming is happening too, surely there is less to be lost, and a great deal to be gained by becoming more eco-friendly? And surely, given the odds, we should at least be trying to change our lifestyles, rather than running the risk of being accused in years to come of fiddling while Rome burns? And surely, even above all that, we have this beautiful, magnificent, breathtaking creation that God has gifted us, and shouldn’t we be looking after it, rather than simply using it up as a commodity?

Can anyone honestly say that, even if global warming is propaganda, decreasing our dependency on cars and fossil fuels isn’t at least a good aspiration?
Very good points.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
What follows is a post from another discussion Web site … www.climatechangedebate.com

The post refers to a recent paper that suggests that there are 300,000 underwater volcanoes that are pumping out Carbon Dioxide and other gasses.

Here is the post; it cannot be accessed by link because you need to be registered to read it. And the article is summarized but may not stay available on line for very long.

he true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

“The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth,” says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. “But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them,” he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean’s surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.

Data overload

But there is a multitude of small volcanoes that have gone undetected. The only way of identifying them is to manually find their outline on sonar measurements taken from ships.

Since the late 1960s, research vessels have been criss-crossing the oceans using sonar instruments to measure the depth of the ocean floor. They have generated 40 million kilometres of linear profiles showing the topography of the ocean bed between 60° North – the latitude of southern Alaska – and 60° South – corresponding to the tip of Patagonia.

But until now, no one had been able to sift through them all. So, Hillier and a colleague designed a computer programme that was able to analyse the huge amount of data and identify volcano-like shapes in the sonar lines.

The programme found 201,055 volcanoes over 100m tall. Previously, satellite data had identified 14,164 volcanoes over 1500 m high.

Hillier then extrapolated the data to estimate how many volcanoes exist beyond the areas the research vessels sounded out. He estimates there are about 39,000 volcanoes that are higher than 1000 m, leaving nearly 25,000 yet to be directly discovered.

Surprising distribution

Hiller says he was surprised to find that the density of small volcanoes dropped in the area around Iceland, as Iceland is known to be a hotspot for volcanic activity.

Another surprise was that he found fewer volcanoes on the seabed around Hawaii, another volcanic hotspot. He says his findings may mean that researchers need to re-assess their understanding of how submarine volcanoes are formed.

In 2006, a team of researchers from Japan discovered a new type of volcano which also defied conventional theories of volcanism. The “petit-spot” volcanoes, aged between one to eight million years old, did not sit at tectonic plate boundaries or over volcanic hotspots (see New type of volcano fires imaginations).

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2007GL029874)

A simple explantion for the lack of volcanoes around known volcanic areas above sea level could be that volcanoes erupting or outgassing in the surface are the relief valve of the hot magma below, so the pressure is diverted towards the spots of less resistency. (?)
 
This is a post I made elsewhere linking our lack of knowledge of volcanic activity to the emissions that volcanoes give off.

There is more and more “experiential” information being gathered on undersea volcanic activity. Earlier estimates of 30,000 seem to be understated by a factor of ten.

In addition the the “petit-spot” volcanoes, there are also the “linear” volanoes … long “seeps” which are actually long cracks through which molten rock flows out.

It appears we need a whole new lexicon of volcanology.

We need to catalog the volcanoes one by one, grid by grid, and have some measure of their emissions, in terms of volume and composition and rate of emission) of gaseous and solid emissions as well as some indicator of “frequency” (which may or may not make sense when the emissions are continuous.

As far as I know the only continuous emitting land-based volcano is Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. AND, even THAT volcano is mischaracterized in terms of the chemical composition of the emissions.

For decades, the forces of political correctness DENIED that volcanoes were sources of CFC’s and other organohalogens.

AND THEN, all of a sudden, Dr. Gordon Gribble burst upon the scene and by now has identified around 4,000 naturally occurring organohalogens including CFC’s. AND even with all his data, folks were fighting him and insisting that he was faking his data. Interested folks should look up the work of Gordon Gribble.
 
if it looks like global warming, walks like global warming, and quacks like global warming, it’s…

propaganda?

if so, this is propaganda that has a heck of a lot of evidence on its side.
 
if it looks like global warming, walks like global warming, and quacks like global warming, it’s…

propaganda?

if so, this is propaganda that has a heck of a lot of evidence on its side.
It’s important to be really careful with the “language” … the specific lexicon of the debate.

The terms being used more or less interchangeably or are used as “code words” in the political debate include, but are not limited to:

“global warming”.

“climate change”

“anthropogenic global warming”

“carbon dioxide”

During the 20th century the temperature appears to have changed several times, up and down, by fractions of a degree. The problem is that measuring the Earth’s temperature is very difficult to do accurately and consistently. There is no one master location and every measuring system is subject to the wide variations typical of weather in general. Much of the debate centers around computer models, which keep changing. In any case, the projections by some computer models for the next 100 years suggest a range of possible temp changes, but they generally are in the range of 1-2 degrees Celsius. However, when spread over 100 years, that means, on average, 0.01 to 0.02 degrees per year … which is immeasurably small. We cannot measure temperatures of the planet that small.

Climate change is another issue … if the temperature changes, how does that impact climate? Answer: we do not know, although we can make guesses. However, even the most expert people have been confounded. For example, last year, the best minds projected a large number of hurricanes for the Atlantic/Caribbean … they didn’t happen. So the experts were totally wrong, even though they were absolutely positive and definitive in their statements.

The most virulent expression is “anthropogenic global warming”. The word “anthropogenic” means “man made”. A lot of assertions have been made that man is responsible for the global warming projections that come out of the computer models. However, there is absolutely no way to know for real whether any of the global warming is attributable to human activity. We can project and we can guess. But the problem is that the NATURAL sources and causes of global temperature change are totally ignored; they are not listed and their impact(s) are not calculated.

One of my posts suggests that the impact of volcanic activity is far higher than previously estimated. The problem is that the computer models produce results that are out to several decimal points in precision, but are not accurate. There is a difference between precision and accuracy. You might measure your body temperature and the thermometer may say your temp is 98.5962 degrees F. That is very precise. However, we might then take the thermometer to a laboratory and check the calibration and find out that it is off by 2 degrees. So the accuracy is way off, in that case. So all that precision out to four decimal places is totally wasted and misleading because the instrument is innacurate by 2 degrees. And instruments are notorious for lack of accuracy… on top of which the way in which the readings are taken and the locations at which the readings are taken can dramatically alter the readings.

Finally, there is “carbon dioxide”. CO2 is given off by every living creature and every machine that oxidizes fuel. Plants take in CO2 during the day and using photosynthesis use the CO2 to produce vegetation. At night the plants give off CO2. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere go up and down and seem to have some correlation with temperature. However, there is a time lag, and the temp change comes BEFORE the change in CO2 concentration. So it may be that the temp change CAUSES the change in CO2 concentration. How can that be??? Well, there is dissolved CO2 in the oceans. If the ocean temperature increases, then some of the dissolved CO2 will vaporize into the air. We don’t know what causes the ocean temperature to increase. There are several ocean “oscillators” that operate. We don’t know why.
 
The issues are extremely complex, which is why I have carried on at such length. …

There could be subsurface underwater “volcanic” activity. We now think there are ten times as many undersea volcanoes as we used to think… 300,000 of them. Whereas there are only 1000 or so land volcanoes and most of them are dormant or inactive.

ALSO, the role of the sun is not understood. Only a few years ago, if you said you were studying sun spots, people would say you were crazy … even though sun spots have been counted for centuries and the sun spot cycles (which are roughly 11 years long … they vary from 9 to 15 years) have been correlated with weather and climate phenomena. Some of the effects include severe electromagnetic radiation and also heating of the atmosphere. There are MANY of these cycles. I have written about some of them in my newsletter.

FINALLY, there have been some recent suggestions that cosmic rays may affect cloud formation, and since clouds are water vapor, which is an atmospheric gas (much more prevalent than CO2), then it is also possible that cosmic rays may have a role or some partial responsibility for “climate change”.

The issues are extremely complex and the more we learn, the more we become aware of the complexity.

It’s not “just” global warming or “just” carbon footprint.*
 
I borrowed this from a friend who posted it on another forum.

He is discussing the impact of variations in the length of the solar cycle on temperature readings here on Planet Earth.

“It is not so much the variance in energy output that counts. It is the solar lenght cycle. All long solar cycles prior to sudden temperature drops have been long (12 years plus), and this cycle 23 goes heading to be a 13.6 years in length, similar to cycle N0. 4, just before the Double Minimum Dalton. We are about ot see a temperature decrease in the next few years of more than 1.5º C.”
 
hi al,
i might as well just admit that i didn’t understand a word you just said. 😃
 
hi al,
i might as well just admit that i didn’t understand a word you just said. 😃
Reread it. Slowly. Which is what you have to do with science topics. When I was first introduced to solid state physics I spent eight hours reading ONE PAGE … over and over. My daughter does a monthly science broadcast for NASA and even I have to follow along with the transcript. Science is just complicated stuff and unfortunately defies simplicity.

The problem is that so-called “climate science” doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. Sorry if I sound sarcastic.

I have even tried to come up with a ONE PAGE scientific description of the global warming controversy. However the best I could come up with was a three-page essay. [One of my priest-friends is doing some writing and asked for some reference material and ideas on global warming.]

Here is the problem: every time a proponent of the AGW … anthropogenic “man made”] global warming … concept is defeated, they spin the words and slide off or segue into some other issue … they change the subject … “yeah, but what about …”]

There are plenty of books on the subject. Visit Amazon or ABEbooks and buy two of them: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” by Christopher Horner; and “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer & Avery. There are plenty of papers on the subject also and if you are interested I will get them to you. More stuff is on my Web site, but the moderator has stated we can’t quote ourselves. The debate gets complicated so some resources are needed; one page is insufficient.

Here is the main thing:
The ENTIRE AGW controversy is based on computer models … simulations. That is all. Video games. Nothing more. BUT THEN, they shift to and use tons of anecdotes, most of which are one-time events (which nature is full of) and which are totally invalid for scientific evidence purposes. And the computer models change CONSTANTLY, so how valid are they when the conclusions change constantly. With computer models, if you don’t like the output, you change either or both … the data or the structure of the model… and voila, you get the output results you are looking for. Dishonest? You bet!

When skeptics of man-made global warming raise anecdotes that contradict the AGW theories, they are accused of using anecdotes that are invalid for science, but then the AGW proponents go ahead and use THEIR anecdotes, which are equally invalid.

Actually, according to the scientific method, ANY anecdote that contradicts a scientific theory automatically invalidates that theory.

There is NO EVIDENCE that changes in global temperature or climate are caused by human activity. NONE.

And then they say there are thousands of scientists who have signed on to the AGW campaign … but the actual number is around six … and they are people who are employed by organizations to make those statements.

The sea level is rising, which is false because it turns out that the people pushing that false notion are using ONE measuring location, at Hong Kong … where the land is sinking. Claims that rising sea levels at islands in the Pacific Ocean are turning out to be false. [Someone actually went to one of the islands and found it was all lies; everything is actually fine.]

And it goes on and on. Every time you pin these people down, they slither off into some other issue.

They say the sun’s contribution has already been included in the equations, but then it turns out the sun’s cycles have NOT been included. Then they say that the temperatures in the summer are increasing, but temperatures have been higher in summer before; and things like temperatures do cycle back and forth, as do rainfall patterns.

The ice in the Arctic and Antarctic have always cycled back and forth. They deny it, but the more data we collect, the more we realize that it’s true. The ice around Greenland and Iceland has always cycled back and forth. I have a quote from a diary of Christopher Columbus in which he was surprised to be able to sail 500 miles to the north of Iceland in February 1477.

And so it goes.

Please … keep reading. Never stop reading.

Compare and contrast. Keep doing that.
 
if it looks like global warming, walks like global warming, and quacks like global warming, it’s…

propaganda?

if so, this is propaganda that has a heck of a lot of evidence on its side.
In science, you have to read everything. Compare the data.

What you find eventually is that the “evidence” for man-made global warming is fake.

I first got interested in “climate science” when I got involved in the controversy surrounding the so-called “ozone hole”. I read everything.

Then I started finding inconsistencies in the scientific papers. One paper, in the abstract [aka, summary in the front], stated there were no volcanic sources for CFC’s … one of the organohalogens. BUT IN THE BODY TEXT AND TABLES OF THE PAPER, there were tons of actual data. In other words, what the author had to do, to get the paper published, was to lie in the summary … say there were none … in the hopes that the “peer reviewers” would not read the body text. And he got lucky… they did not read the text. And so he showed that volcanoes do produce huge volumes of CFC’s.

Since then, Gordon Gribble [these guys, if they are modest, don’t advertise that they have a doctorate] has published numerous times about the naturally occurring organohalogens which even NASA had once denied even existed … and now, thanks to Gribble, we know there are more than 4.000 of them.

Anyway, eventually, I stumbled across a paper in Applied Optics by G.M.B. Dobson published in March 1968. With a dorky title about the work done by Oxford University in research since 1922. Dobson. Forty years’ research on atmospheric ozone. at Oxford: a. history. Applied Optics,. 7(3):387-405,. March. 1968. ]

Anyway, the article was excruciatingly boring and not knowing I could get it for free, I paid $16 for it … which was a lot of money to me at the time]… with class photos and all that … until Dobson showed graphs summarizing his work for 40 years. And he showed, that decades before the current controversy, how stratospheric ozone varied by latitude and by month and how there were natural anomalies all over the world.

His work has never been updated.

And the ozone hole “promoters” ignored all his previous work and didn’t push the notion of a “hole” until after he died on March 10, 1976.

So you have to keep reading. It’s tedious. But that’s the only way that the truth will come out.
 
There are plenty of books on the subject. Visit Amazon or ABEbooks and buy two of them: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” by Christopher Horner; and “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer & Avery.
The bad news is, my library system doesn’t have a copy of the Singer-Avery book.😦
The good new is, they do have a copy of Horner’s. 🙂

I appreciate the recommendations.

Ender
 
In science, you have to read everything. Compare the data.

What you find eventually is that the “evidence” for man-made global warming is fake…

So you have to keep reading. It’s tedious. But that’s the only way that the truth will come out.
So let me get this straight Al, you’re citing 30 and 40 year old papers and work in optics that can be up to 80 years old?

CFCs weren’t developed until the 20s and much of the baseline measurements were made in the 70s so I’m not sure what a book published in 1968 can contribute. :confused:

Yes there is a well-known seasonal ozone variation but there is also a secondary depletion mechanism that wasn’t measured until the 80s.

We didn’t even ave the technology to measure concentrations in the ppb or ppt range until the past few decades.

Reading everything may indeed be tedious and sometimes it is not useful.

While naturally occurring haloalkanes may be formed in volcanoes (I don’t know I’d have to check. At first glance it doesn’t seem to be a good environment for organic materials) CFC are manufactured and were developed by Midgley in 1928 so I’m not sure what you think Dobson was measuring in 1922.
 
Al Masetti –

Will you please post the URL for your web site?
I’m sorry if I did not catch it on a previous post.

Thanks,
Mimi
 
Responding to the discussion about the need to “read everything” including old papers…

The essence of science is curious inquiry.

You have a desire to know what is going on and, in a spirit of uncertainty, to hazard a guess as to why.

Looking at old papers and data can lead to new discoveries.

We may find that a current scientific discovery is merely a continuation of an older trend, rather than something totally new and unique.

Or, we may find errors in old data (reminiscent of the errors found in old logrymithic tables which had led to maritime navigational disasters until the tables were corrected).

Or an instrument placement that was or has become inappropriate (for example, air temperature and chemical sampling devices may have been located at places that are now bus stops and no longer provide a representative sample of ambient air conditions).

Or perhaps we find data that cannot be replicated

Or perhaps older data that contradicts newer data. So we need to determine the reason why.

Or perhaps a data series that is supposed to begin at zero and end at zero, but instead ends at some high level. We need to know why.

Or data that we know was zero … could not have been anything other than zero … but the published results show positive activity which cannot be accounted for (except by fraud).

Or data that is shown as zero but we know from other sources was some actual positive value.

In any event, it is still possible to make new and sometimes startling scientific discoveries such as Gordon Gribble’s discovery that organohalogens including CFC’s can and do occur in nature.

Dobson’s work on stratospheric ozone was initially published in a number of papers, culminating in his book “Exploring the Atmosphere ” in 1963. After the data from International Geophysical Year became available, Dobson updated the book in 1968.

Anyone interested in science would enjoy reading the work of Dobson and Gribble. Readers may be surprised at what these two men accomplished, sometimes in the face of great controversy. Gribble’s work contradicted everything that was understood at the time it was accepted and settled that there were no naturally-occurring sources of organohalogens … but Gribble has so far found several THOUSAND! ] Dobson’s work was so advanced that after his death, the unit of measure of stratospheric ozone was named after him … the DU … Dobson Unit. Dobson invented and built the measuring instruments and deployed them all over the world.

Although Dobson’s book is a little older, it is so well written and so comprehensive and so understandable that anyone looking for a quick way to learn about the atmosphere should purchase a copy. Also, visit Google Scholar scholar.google.com/ ]and type in “G.M.B. Dobson”. With all of my reading, I still have not found any work as comprehensive as his. In addition, the graphs showing the variations of stratospheric ozone by latitude and by season have not appeared anywhere else.

The regular Google seems to produce “the best” results for Gordon Gribble. (Using Google Scholar produces mostly very detailed work and he is listed as an author on a LOT of papers, probably collaborations with students).

Although some of the terminology may be intimidating, once you get into it, you can get totally absorbed. You may ask “why this” or “why that”… and in chasing down the answers to those specifici questions, a lot of other bits of knowledge start to “lock together”.

Amazing and fun stuff.
 
Responding to the discussion about the need to “read everything” including old papers…

The essence of science is curious inquiry.
The essence of science is systematic inquiry.
Curiosity by itself may get you started but without some means of separating the wheat from the chaff you can waste a lot of time.
You have a desire to know what is going on and, in a spirit of uncertainty, to hazard a guess as to why.

Looking at old papers and data can lead to new discoveries.
Sure it can in some cases but that doesn’t answer the specific points I raised about the book you choose to read and your conclusions from it.
We may find that a current scientific discovery is merely a continuation of an older trend, rather than something totally new and unique.
Most scientific work is a continuation and refinement of previous work.
Or, we may find errors ……

Or an instrument placement …………

Or perhaps we find data …….

Or perhaps older data that contradicts newer data. So we need to determine the reason why.

Or perhaps a data series that is supposed to begin at zero and end at zero, but instead ends at some high level. We need to know why.
All interesting points but your subtext seems to be that these items are somehow not addressed in the education of scientists or in the standard technical publishing process.
Or data that we know was zero … could not have been anything other than zero … but the published results show positive activity which cannot be accounted for (except by fraud).
There is no such thing as zero.

Fraud is quite a serious claim. And while there have been a few cases in science it is their rarity that makes them outstanding.
And they have been exposed by other scientists.
Or data that is shown as zero but we know from other sources was some actual positive value.
There is no such thing as zero
Only things that are vanishing small
In any event, it is still possible to make new and sometimes startling scientific discoveries such as Gordon Gribble’s discovery that organohalogens including CFC’s can and do occur in nature.
I read one of Gribble’s papers. It was a rah-rah paper for a chlorine industry group along the lines of “Our Friends the Halogens”. Nothing wrong with that it pays the bills. But it was a broad gloss with very little specific data regarding mechanisms. He indicates that one type of CFC can occur naturally (implying that the other types don’t). But it shouldn’t be a surprise that certain classes of compounds are made naturally. After all, if a mechanism for them didn’t exist we wouldn’t be able to make them. Halogens are not uncommon and are very reactive.

But I’m not sure what his (or your) point is. Just because something appears naturally that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily harmless or good for you in all circumstances. Snake venom and dog poop are 100% natural after all and I would be careful what I did with those.
Dobson’s work on stratospheric ozone was initially published in a number of papers, culminating in his book “Exploring the Atmosphere ” in 1963. After the data from International Geophysical Year became available, Dobson updated the book in 1968.
Yes I know. But the breakthrough work on ozone depletion was done after 1968. The work on the secondary mechanism wasn’t even measured until after Dobson’s death.
So as I said earlier I’m not sure what the point is bringing up earlier work.

continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top