Post by: Ron on May 16, 2007, 08:38:32 AM
Quote
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven consensus on man-made global warming.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Post by: Iain on May 16, 2007, 08:49:25 AM
Now, the conspiracy says this is all about politics - yet it looks to me like the so-called 'sceptics' are pretty highly politicised, especially those in Washington. Especially considering this is Sen Inhofe's blog, the man never met a 'global warming is a hoax' claimant he didn't love.
Whatever way you want to look at it, you'd be wrong to claim that the majority of climate scientists reject anthropogenic global warming. Attack the majority and the consensus as not being science as much as you want, but then you'll have to provide some pretty strong evidence as to why you, a lay person, rejects the consensus position in favour of a minority position because that decision has to be based on something - just what exactly?
There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment. - Bertrand Russell
Post by: The Rabbi on May 16, 2007, 10:32:05 AM
Post by: Iain on May 16, 2007, 10:58:07 AM
The Galileo position still relies on these guys actually being right. Belief, as a lay person, that they are is an act of faith. I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 16, 2007, 01:02:57 PM
I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.
So the issue should be settled by majority vote? Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists? Biologists? Politicians? We the people?
It's just a silly approach. What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven. Bah.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 16, 2007, 01:22:33 PM
Sure they might be right this time, but the odds are not necessarily in their favor based on past performance.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 16, 2007, 02:02:13 PM
I'll still default to the position that things are as yet uncertain, but that on balance the majority of the experts are agreed that AGW is a real issue.
So the issue should be settled by majority vote? Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists? Biologists? Politicians? We the people?
It's just a silly approach. What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven. Bah.
Post by: Iain on May 16, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
So the issue should be settled by majority vote? Who is entitled to vote? Climatologists? Biologists? Politicians? We the people?
It's just a silly approach. What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven. Bah.
It's just a silly approach. What makes it less than laughable is that the androgenesis global warming crowd is proposing to spend billions of dollars on something as yet unproven. Bah.
Not sure what this has to do with paternal chromosome only embryos. (Yes, I'm being picky)
There's no suggestion that this is a matter to be settled by a vote. All I'm suggesting is that as far as the scientific community on the whole is concerned the weight of the evidence is falling towards climate change being a real, and in part, anthropogenic, issue.
With that in mind we, as lay people, should be very careful about choosing a minority opinion as our own, and even more careful about using terms like 'junk science' or 'pseudo science' when referring to a field about which we grasp only the mere basics, if that.
What is to be done is another matter. But the conspiracy theory is that 'what to do' is what this is all about.
Carebear - without dragging DDT into this too much (because I've read very conflicting info, most of the pro-DDT stuff comes from the same sources as the anti-GW stuff) - tell me about global cooling. Or I'll say again that global cooling was a 70's media thing, there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles about global cooling, or at least none that anyone has yet found. The whole 'but in the 70's you said cooling' is another 'sceptic' 'gotcha' that it would seem doesn't actually stand up to much scrutiny.
Post by: grampster on May 16, 2007, 04:46:27 PM
The global warming situation is more of a political statement imho. Science shows that weather and or climate ebbs and flows. By the way Mars is warming too. Do you suppose that is because the Martians are driving Hummers?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2007, 04:52:25 PM
Quote
tell me about global cooling. Or I'll say again that global cooling was a 70's media thing, there were no peer-reviewed scientific articles about global cooling, or at least none that anyone has yet found. The whole 'but in the 70's you said cooling' is another 'sceptic' 'gotcha' that it would seem doesn't actually stand up to much scrutiny.
Iain, I'll say this once, so listen up. Back in the 70s, I said there would be global cooling. If that ain't scientific enough for ya...
Post by: Iain on May 16, 2007, 05:00:52 PM
There is much less evidence that Mars is warming than there is that the Earth is warming. - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 The seizing of this 'evidence' by some tells me enough about their real scientific rigour (or understanding)
I'm sorry grampster - science is largely about forming a consensus because a consensus is arrived at when the theory under discussion is shown to be that which fits the known facts. General relativity is accepted as consensus. Falsification would state that AGW or relativity can never be proven, only disproven. As that has happened in either of these cases the general scientific consensus is that these are workable theories. That's how science is.
This is actually quite a useful quote from wikipedia - "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."
That's what is happening here, no it's not a scientific argument in an of itself (but then this isn't a scientific discussion), but it is a position that has been arrived at through rigorous scientific research, peer review and debate. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of papers and research projects that have gone into forming this position. For a lay person to dismiss all this as a 'political statement' or 'pseudo science' is where the breath-taking arrogance in this whole debate is to be found.
Also bear in mind that for every Galileo there are countless erroneous results, rejected theories and outright cranks.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on May 16, 2007, 05:59:51 PM
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%
Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 16, 2007, 06:22:09 PM
but pop is research meteorologist for 35 years for airforce then the weather bureau cuminating with noaa. and he and his compadres laugh when you bring up global warming. words like political farce and comments about al gores genealogy abound. bear in mind dad helped design the models that these guys use to shill their game. from back when they used punch cards in the computers and hes says that they are remiss to place as much weight on the models as they do. and he snorts and says 1 f'ing degree in a 100 years? give me a break. weather works in cycles of 1000's of years don't sweat a warm fart in a high wind
Post by: Iain on May 16, 2007, 11:47:37 PM
green house gasses
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%
Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%
Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
What is it you think you have found that climatologists have failed to spot? Is this the great flaw in the conspiracy? Quality source there too.
That's just silly. Ten minutes of serious reading, and an abandonment of pre-conception, would remove these certainties.
Cassandrasdaddy - I don't know about your dad, but models have changed an awful lot, and like I say, unless there is some giant conspiracy, the vast majority of the guys doing the climate research don't agree. I'm not saying your dad is wrong, but I am saying that for me to be a sceptic in the mould of the Russell quote above, I can't place very much weight on your anecdote.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2007, 04:09:43 AM
Scientists who dispute global warming get called pawns of ExxonMobil and are denigrated as out of touch and, gasp, conservatives.
So which way is a scientist more likely to lean?
Post by: richyoung on May 17, 2007, 04:19:28 AM
green house gasses
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%
Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
1) Water Vapor 95%
2) CO2 3.5%
3) N20 1%
4) Methane .4%
Humans contribute .3
the rest is ole Gia fartin'
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
What is it you think you have found that climatologists have failed to spot? Is this the great flaw in the conspiracy?
The climatologists always leave water vapor OUT - which suspiciously amplifies the effects of mankind by a factor of 20. Not very scientific. Not to mention that all the junk computer models used to justify GW completely ignore water vapor, because they don't know how to model it. Since water vapor "drives the train" of global warming, its kind of stupid to try to make centuries-long predictions without TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION.
Quote
Quality source there too.
Doesn't matter if it came from Chairman Mao's Little REd Book or the "The Wit and Wisdom of PeeWee Herman" - the FIGURES (which after all, are the important thing, nicht var?) are correct and verifiable from a number of sources, some of the government.
Quote
That's just silly. Ten minutes of serious reading, and an abandonment of pre-conception, would remove these certainties.
Cassandrasdaddy - I don't know about your dad, but models have changed an awful lot, and like I say, unless there is some giant conspiracy, the vast majority of the guys doing the climate research don't agree. I'm not saying your dad is wrong, but I am saying that for me to be a sceptic in the mould of the Russell quote above, I can't place very much weight on your anecdote.
Cassandrasdaddy - I don't know about your dad, but models have changed an awful lot, and like I say, unless there is some giant conspiracy, the vast majority of the guys doing the climate research don't agree. I'm not saying your dad is wrong, but I am saying that for me to be a sceptic in the mould of the Russell quote above, I can't place very much weight on your anecdote.
...hard to claim any pretense of impartiality or scepticism when one is a "true beleiver...
Post by: HankB on May 17, 2007, 04:23:08 AM
. . . it is a position that has been arrived at through rigorous scientific research, peer review and debate. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of papers and research projects that have gone into forming this position.
From Wikipedia:
Quote
newspapers inevitably applauded . . . and questioned the motives of . . . critics . . . a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics who urged the patience and observation required for science.
Quote
.. . there is no doubt that rival views were rejected because they were seen as "bourgeois" or "fascist"
These quotes weren't taken from Wiki's references to global warming, but from the article on Lysenkoism, the agricultural "science" that held sway in the USSR for three decades, well into the 1960's. Government got behind it, and it became the accepted "science" for thirty years.Faith in man-made global warming may well be the modern - and more widespread - Lysenkoism. If you're a climatologist and disagree, and you will not get research grants, you will not get funding, you will not be published . . . you will be denigrated in the press and elsewhere.
Post by: Iain on May 17, 2007, 04:47:44 AM
Faith in man-made global warming may well be the modern - and more widespread - Lysenkoism. If you're a climatologist and disagree, and you will not get research grants, you will not get funding, you will not be published . . . you will be denigrated in the press and elsewhere.
This is nothing more than conspiracy theory. You'd need a pretty high standard of proof for this one. Now some scientists are derided for their connections to the the oil and gas industries, and that's not always right, but when you have these industries offering payment to anyone who publishes anything questioning the science, you've got to wonder just who has the better claim to conspiracy theories.
Rich - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 - still sure those figures are right? What we've got here are 'my figures' against 'your figures'. Gonna be pretty hard for us to come to a conclusion based on the understandings that we've both previously demonstrated (i.e, we've both been wrong, neither of us are climate scientists). Suffice to say, claiming that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect as 'correct and verifiable' when in fact that is a highly disputed claim (and allegedly from one original source too, namely Singer) is a big stretch.
Models do account for water vapour, and unless you've played with one and have the expertise to judge, calling them 'junk' is way out of the bounds of reasonable comment.
You can paint me as a 'true believer' if you want - but ask yourself this - who places massive and unsupportable faith in a very limited number of sources on a subject they are not personally expert?
That isn't me. I've had the reverse of this conversation in which I've questioned the scientific understanding of those advocating extreme and radical 'we're all doomed' views. They have labels for me too.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on May 17, 2007, 05:42:03 AM
The Sky is Frying!
The Sky is Frying!
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 05:48:18 AM
"Scientific Consensus" on environmental damages attributable to man has a pretty hideous past track record for both accuracy and in some cases unintended consequences. DDT and "global cooling" immediately springing to mind.
Sure they might be right this time, but the odds are not necessarily in their favor based on past performance.
Sure they might be right this time, but the odds are not necessarily in their favor based on past performance.
I've read every single national academy of sciences and SCOPE report on climate and weather that was issued during the 1970s. Please point to a single report that predicted global cooling. Just so you know, Newsweek, ScienceNow, and the New York Times are not peer-review scientific journals.
If you want to see a scan of the 1974 NAS report please go here:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html
and look at the JPG's at the bottom of the blog post.
it says:
Quote
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.
The facts on DDT have been twisted in similar ways as well. I suggest you find a new venue for your news. Something that is a little more reliable and isn't driven by commercials, advertisements, TV ratings and controversy.
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 05:54:22 AM
The majority of scientists at one time thought the earth was flat and believed in spontaneous generation.
The flat earth concept fell out of favor in the year 564. That is almost a 2,000 year lag. The scientific method, as we know it today, didn't even get started until the 1930's. Many of Einsteins own papers weren't even peer-reviewed because peer review didn't exist yet. To call experts in the year 500 "scientists" is to have a gross failure of understanding what science and more importantly what the scientific method is.
Please read this:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/flat_earth.html
Not to be condescending but the scientific method is normally taught in the 1st grade. Karl Popper is normally discussed in highschool biology textbooks. Any professional skeptic/denier with a Ph.D. is very well aware of this so you should be extremely skeptical about the intentions of any Ph.D. that uses this argument.
Post by: Iain on May 17, 2007, 05:59:10 AM
Inanity
If that's as good as it gets - don't bother.
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 06:09:27 AM
It's not just the increased spending that should worry us. The greenies want to impose massive new restrictions on what people are allowed to do, build, sell, buy, or use. They want to deny, limit, regulate, and/or tax anything that isn't perfectly pure and green and low in resource consumption. It's a power grab, plain and simple, and it should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who cares about property rights and individual liberty.
I've researched the arguments put forth by just about every skeptic out there. Just about every single one of them is intentionally misleading, lying, or screwing up basic highschool math. One very easy to understand example is Pat Michaels editing graphs and lying or at least being "confused" under oath and 'accidentally' editing out the important parts of climate models:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
This is the most referenced climatologist by CNN.
The science behind global warming is quickly becoming a "no brainer" (not my words, the president of the AAAS's). If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics. Currently this is not the case.
That being said the left does twist climate change. In my opinion (and Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley's) the key to the future is not changing peoples behaviors but investing in new technology. Please review this list:
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/
In all honesty if we all stop driving and turn out the lights we will still emit more CO2 than our planet can handle. So these greenies and hippies are not only masochistic but they are delusional. They just happen to be correct on the fact that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Even chevron (an oil company) says that conservation is a hopeless cause. But their argument is based off of supply/demand and not climate change.
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 06:18:11 AM
Seems things are tacking back to a more balanced look at the science slowly but surely.
There are 15,000 members of the American Geophysical Union in the US alone. If you aren't a member of the AGU then you aren't an expert on climatology. Then there are plenty of Europeans that need to be counted. You could list 200 skeptics and still not hit 1% of the worldwide experts. If you think a 99.5:0.5 ratio is balanced well then I'd love to make some friendly wagers at a casino with you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2007, 06:39:21 AM
Quote
If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics. Currently this is not the case.
Huh?
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2007, 06:42:23 AM
Quote
There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues which needed more research.[16] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."
The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..
The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..
From the Nat'l Academy paper of 1975. Amazing what we've learned in 30 years.
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 06:48:06 AM
From the Nat'l Academy paper of 1975. Amazing what we've learned in 30 years.
There has been amazing advances in the science in the last 10 years alone. Also, look at hansens predictions made in 1988
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
He correctly predicted temps 20 years into the future.
Also Svente Arrhenius calculated global warming potential due to CO2 in 1896 and its put effect between 4-5.7 degrees Celsius. It would appear that he was correct.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on May 17, 2007, 06:53:27 AM
Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997. The actual value was .11 degrees C. I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models. This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close. Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.
NOAA predicted a devastating hurricane season in 2006, and gave only a 5% chance of a light season. And we got a light season.
Current models for 2100 vary between 2 and 6 degrees increase. So there is a 3X variation in the models. And when you consider how climatologists have overestimated temperature increase in the past, this shows how poor their models are.
I find amusing the assumption that most climatologists are paragons of science, with no motivations to skew results one way or the other, whereas only the ones working for oil companies have an ulterior motive. Climatologists have an incentive to skew their results towards more alarming conclusions, because it suddenly makes an inconsequential field the hottest area in science. Also, I once saw video of a climatology conference where a speaker got up and gave a talk that put forward a non-anthropomorphic cause of GW. I was astounded by the emotion in the scientists attacking the theory. It didn't sound like scientific discussion, it sounded more like religious ideologues shouting, "heretic! I've heard from various people that a climatologist who publicly doubts global warming will have his career killed.
Then there is the global cooling issue of the 70s, which some say doesn't matter now, because we know so much more now than we did then. Who is to say we have enough data and modeling now? Dr. Hansen says we aren't able to predict it.
But if the consensus is correct, it is all academic, because there isn't anything meaningful we can do about it anyway. Kyoto will reduce temperatures by .1 degree C. What are we going to do, give up industrialization, and kill off 4 billion people?
wacki, it looks like you've studied this more comprehensibly than I have, so I may have missed some important points. Please point them out if I have.
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 07:11:00 AM
The question boils down to, are the models from the experts of the anthropogenic warming consensus right? From what I've seen, they are wrong.
Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997. The actual value was .11 degrees C. I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models. This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close. Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.
Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997. The actual value was .11 degrees C. I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models. This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close. Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.
Did you say not even close?
recreating the past
predicting 20 years into the future
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
Just curious where did you get the his models were wrong argument?
Quote
NOAA predicted a devastating hurricane season in 2006, and gave only a 5% chance of a light season. And we got a light season.
It's called Calima. Please read this
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/SAL.htm
I'm late for work but I will address the rest of your questions later.
Quote
wacki, it looks like you've studied this more comprehensibly than I have, so I may have missed some important points. Please point them out if I have.
Thanks for being civil. I've read thousands of papers on the topic and I honestly think the skeptics make about as much sense as the brady campaign. When I'm done with work I'll gladly help educate the good members of this forum.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2007, 07:55:59 AM
1) Is there "global warming" meaning the earth's temperature is going up. The consensus seems to be yes on this issue.
2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination? There seems to be no consensus on this.
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall? Again, no consensus on this issue.
4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it? No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it? No evidence whatsoever that I've seen. Nor do I think there can be.
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective? Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.
So the global warming fear-mongers have a long way to go to prove their case. And I dont think they can.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on May 17, 2007, 08:39:42 AM
I found the Hansen info several years ago, but just copied it down and not the source. The Mt. Pinatubo dip and a coincidence of the period between data was taken might be the reason for the error. Looking at the current Hansen models I see on your site, and all the other models I've seen on Wikipedia, yes, there is a general upward trend, but I'm still not convinced partly because their own models vary by so much. Also, I can find a 10 year period where Hansen is wrong. Maybe it is just a coincidence of the period picked. Hansen can find a 100 year period where he is right. If we had good data for 1000 years (and there is again estimation in looking at ice core samples), we might see that he is actually wrong. Not to motion all the sources of error that come into determining if measured temperatures are correct today, and especially if the measured temperatures were correct and comprehensive enough 100 years ago.
The reasons behind the light hurricane season aren't the issue. The point is that the experts were wrong in their prediction.
But I think what's more important is--if indeed humans are indeed warming the globe, can anything be done about it that will make a difference?
Post by: Tallpine on May 17, 2007, 09:17:41 AM
Quote
What are we going to do, give up industrialization, and kill off 4 billion people?
I think that option has been seriously suggested by some folks ...
Post by: Iain on May 17, 2007, 02:26:50 PM
It seems to me there are several distinct questions on this issue:
1) Is there "global warming" meaning the earth's temperature is going up. The consensus seems to be yes on this issue.
Yep1) Is there "global warming" meaning the earth's temperature is going up. The consensus seems to be yes on this issue.
Quote
2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination? There seems to be no consensus on this.
- there is consensus here, aside from a few who attract a lot of media attention in the name of 'fair and balanced'. Not that I think they should be silenced.Quote
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall? Again, no consensus on this issue.
There is pretty definite consensus that if the warming happens as predicted, large areas are going to suffer. Badly.Quote
4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it? No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it? No evidence whatsoever that I've seen. Nor do I think there can be.
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective? Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.
4+5 - stop filling the 'bathtub' up with CO2 faster than it is draining is the general idea. It hangs around in the atmosphere for good periods of time, the science says that we are adding to it faster than it is going.5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it? No evidence whatsoever that I've seen. Nor do I think there can be.
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective? Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.
Cost effectiveness - don't know. Not an economist either. The Stern Review suggests that cost now would be significantly less than cost to future generations.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2007, 03:41:19 PM
Post by: Iain on May 17, 2007, 03:43:31 PM
Apparantly the consensus in Germany is that US-caused global warming was responsible for Katrina. So I dont put much faith in the consensus of Europeans on anything.
The consensus amongst German scientists in a climate related discipline?
Let's not be silly here.
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 04:35:55 PM
Apparantly the consensus in Germany is that US-caused global warming was responsible for Katrina. So I dont put much faith in the consensus of Europeans on anything.
Katrina specifically? I'd like to see that in print. As for hurricanes in general.....
please read this
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/SAL.htm
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 04:40:07 PM
Also, I can find a 10 year period where Hansen is wrong.
Which 10 year period?
Quote
The reasons behind the light hurricane season aren't the issue. The point is that the experts were wrong in their prediction.
This is like saying sombody is wrong when they say you have an 84% chance of rolling something other than a 1 on a six sided die just because you rolled a 1. Maybe you should look up the reasons why their guess wasn't at 100% and see if on of the reasons is the possibility of a Calima event. An event which is a short term fluctuation.
There is a reason why they call it "chance".
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 04:46:14 PM
In science, there can be no such thing as consensus. It either is or it isn't.
con·sen·sus (kən-sĕn'səs) pronunciationn. 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:
http://www.answers.com/consensus
Quote
By the way Mars is warming too. Do you suppose that is because the Martians are driving Hummers?
Warming on mars? Please read this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 04:55:01 PM
2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination? There seems to be no consensus on this.
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall? Again, no consensus on this issue.
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall? Again, no consensus on this issue.
Have you read any of the reports? There is a nice list of quotes here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
Quote
4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it? No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it? No evidence whatsoever that I've seen. Nor do I think there can be.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it? No evidence whatsoever that I've seen. Nor do I think there can be.
Ever heard of alternative energy? Please check this out:
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/
Btw if the peak oil guys and chevron are right then fighting global warming could make your ammo cheaper in the long run. Ignoring global warming could make ammo more expensive. Just something to think about.....
Quote
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective? Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.
Please read the stern report.
oh and this thing tooo....
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-expensive-we-can-do-is-nothing.html
It's titled:
"The most expensive thing we can do is nothing"
Post by: The Rabbi on May 17, 2007, 05:14:19 PM
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html
Post by: wacki on May 17, 2007, 07:45:28 PM
Quote
If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics. Currently this is not the case.
Huh?
Don't get me wrong I've been extremely impressed with the expertise on firearms at THR. And David Kopel's Samurai, Mountie & Cowboy book is one of my favorites. But when I see Tim Lambert make complete fools of Lott & friends I really start to question whether the firearm community is in the right or the wrong. Luckily I've complete my own research with the help of the good folks at the THR and my support for the 2A is stronger than ever. But when the author of one of my favorite books (Kopel) references somebody (Seitz) that believes tobacco doesn't cause cancer, CFC's don't effect the ozone layer, and HIV doesn't cause aids as an expert on climate change I can't help but cringe. It makes me afraid to recommend his book to my friends. To my knowledge the firearm community doesn't have a single spokesman that hasn't made some incredibly massive blunders. There are a few highly respectable profs that have written op-eds but all of the main activists have shot themselves in the foot in one way or another. And that makes me very very sad because I'm a huge fan of our founding fathers and a strong supporter of our freedoms.
Kopels article:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4747222,00.html
I might expand on this later. I have more to say and I'm a bit nervous I might step on more toes than I need to. Please realize I do have a ton of respect for many many members of this forum. I fully support open discussion. I just wish that some concepts (like natural selection and random mutations) that weren't debated as hotly as they seem to be here.
Then again if you throw me in an English class I would be a huge ignoramus. Everyone has their weaknesses and their talents....
Post by: Iain on May 18, 2007, 01:30:00 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2007, 03:17:27 AM
Post by: wacki on May 18, 2007, 05:11:56 AM
wacki's a troll? How so? And who's the other guy who's not a troll?
There is someone in that thread that posted links to the logical science website over and over again. Maybe he thinks I'm him. I dunno. I may have been blunt in this thread and hurt some peoples feelings but I've tried to be polite as possible. Truth is like surgery, it hurts but it cures. I wouldn't have even come into this thread if Iain hadn't PM'ed me requesting me to do so. Once I got started it's not exactly prudent to stop when people are debunking your claims with faulty logic, facts, and figures. In all honesty I really don't care much about global warming anymore. I just don't think the people in power care enough to do anything and I don't think quality scientists (not the loony ones you see on TV) are listened to by those that can take action. We live in a society where a celebrity can make a complete mockery out of the worlds best scientists. Not too long ago Barbara Streisand convinced the public that the scientific community was lying them. The result was a perfectly safe chemical called Alar (used by farmers) is now banned. It took scientists decades to convince the public that smoking causes cancer despite pictures of pitch black lungs. I could go on and on and on..... The sad thing is that people would be richer, healthier, they would feel younger, and even have more choices if they just listened to the mainstream scientists. A few of my favorite quotes are:
Quote
Men reject their prophets and slay them, but they love their martyrs and honor those whom they have slain. - Fyodor Dostoyevski
After all, whats the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all were willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true. -Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland on ozone depletion
After all, whats the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all were willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true. -Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland on ozone depletion
Society in general just isn't educated enough, motivated enough, or caring enough to learn what they need to learn about science related political topics. So if the world doesn't care why should I? Maybe I'm being too hard on the people and it's just the industry, the politicians, the controversy loving/fabricating media, and the rare but very visible corrupt/politically motivated scientists (on both sides) that are misleading a caring public. But at this point just let me have my guns so I can take care of myself and I will be happy. I'm happy to educate people if asked to and people are willing to listen. I will do the right thing if it will make an impact. But I'm certainly not on some Al Gore crusade. About a year ago I realized that even top scientists are often powerless (or neutralized for a decade or two). I just don't think anything I can do on a public forum will have any impact on society as a whole. And so I just don't care.
If you do care about terrorism, disease, starvation, global warming, energy, and the worlds top ten problems well there is one thing you can do. You can watch the video here:
"Our Energy Challenge" September 23, 2003
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv
found on this page:
http://smalley.rice.edu/
and educate yourself. It's old and technology has progressed a lot since then but I strongly believe everything he says is dead on accurate. I truly believe the worlds top ten problems share a common single solution either in whole or in part. He was dying of cancer when he made this talk so he really didn't have any conflicts of interest.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 18, 2007, 07:33:44 AM
yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys? then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program? and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.
an expert knows more and more about less and less till he knows everything about nothin
Post by: wacki on May 18, 2007, 11:03:39 AM
yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys? then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program? and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.
And supposedly the scientific community predicted global cooling..... only they didn't.
Who exactly are these scientists? And what exactly was their proof? Was it purely statistical correlation or was it a mechanism that they were touting? All of these things make a big difference. I mean realclimate.org just showed that republicans are highly correlated with sunspots. But correlation does not always equal causation and that was the point of the article. Also a single paper in a journal doesn't count as "the scientific community" even if it is peer review. It is just one piece of an entire library of evidence. If you are going to chastise the scientific community as a whole you need to point to an instance where the scientific community as a whole royally screwed up. There are millions of scientists on this planet and to expect all of them to perform flawlessly despite age, experience, political ideology, pure ability, and bribery is just unrealistic. This is a very simple concept that very few people seem to be able to grasp. The NAS is generally extremely careful with their assessment reports. Last time I checked the NAS hasn't done any assessment reports on sleeping positions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2007, 03:10:00 PM
Quote
If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics. Currently this is not the case.
Being skeptical about global warming (or evolution for that matter) is not as simple as all of that. If Kopel or LaPierre, or whoever, has been sold a bill of goods on climate change, it has nothing to do with their mastery of "highschool level science, math, and physics." If they have picked the wrong side of things outside their line of work, it probably means that they haven't studied these issues as closely as you seem to have. (What is your science background, by the way?) Most lay-people get their ideas about science from people they trust, because they don't have the training or interest to pore over the thousands of articles that you alluded to, and come to an oh-so-scientific conclusion.
Now, this probably means that they should be careful not to run their mouths on topics they don't understand. But when you talk about being taken seriously, I wonder by whom?. The person who needs to be convinced of the RKBA argument is just as likely to be put off by other conservative or libertarian points of view that seem abhorrent to them. What if Kopel professes the ridiculous notion that tax cuts increase revenue? What if he opines that abortion should be illegal or that gas prices are the result of supply and demand, rather than a shady cabal of oil men with ties to the White House? I don't think those things would hurt the cause any less. Anybody with an open mind to consider Kopel's views will also recognize that he can be solid on one issue and flaky on another.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 18, 2007, 04:07:09 PM
yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys? then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program? and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.
And supposedly the scientific community predicted global cooling..... only they didn't.
Who exactly are these scientists? And what exactly was their proof? Was it purely statistical correlation or was it a mechanism that they were touting? All of these things make a big difference. I mean realclimate.org just showed that republicans are highly correlated with sunspots. But correlation does not always equal causation and that was the point of the article. Also a single paper in a journal doesn't count as "the scientific community" even if it is peer review. It is just one piece of an entire library of evidence. If you are going to chastise the scientific community as a whole you need to point to an instance where the scientific community as a whole royally screwed up. There are millions of scientists on this planet and to expect all of them to perform flawlessly despite age, experience, political ideology, pure ability, and bribery is just unrealistic. This is a very simple concept that very few people seem to be able to grasp. The NAS is generally extremely careful with their assessment reports. Last time I checked the NAS hasn't done any assessment reports on sleeping positions.
back when you were reading those articles in the 70's you missed the ones that touted the "jet contrail causing global cooling ones?
my grandfather used to laugh about the folks that predicted new yourk was gonna collapse socially cause they were running outa room for the horse manure.
the pediatric docs changed direction 180 degrees without flinching with their back to sleep campaign
i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils
Post by: wacki on May 18, 2007, 08:09:47 PM
Thanks for the explanation, wacki. But I think you should reconsider this statement:
Being skeptical about global warming (or evolution for that matter) is not as simple as all of that. If Kopel or LaPierre, or whoever, has been sold a bill of goods on climate change, it has nothing to do with their mastery of "highschool level science, math, and physics."
Quote
If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics. Currently this is not the case.
Being skeptical about global warming (or evolution for that matter) is not as simple as all of that. If Kopel or LaPierre, or whoever, has been sold a bill of goods on climate change, it has nothing to do with their mastery of "highschool level science, math, and physics."
People who are skeptical of global warming really don't get to me. It's many of the arguments used.
Among the pros: Ross McKitrick screws up highschool level thermodynamics (physics) equations by using Celcius instead of Kelvin and messes up higschool level math by confusing degrees with radians. He has a long history of making similar 'mistakes'. Consistently screwing highschool level math is not something a math focused Ph.D should be doing. Yet he still retains tons of credibility among the right/conservatives. That *sortof* gets to me. The industry funded climate skeptic Pat Michaels edits Hansen's models/graphs and falsely accuses Hansen's predictions as being wrong. Yet he still manages to be the most interviewed climatologist on the mainstream news by a factor of 2. That definitely gets to me. I just don't understand why people can't spot him for what he is.
I limited my arguments to the professionals because I don't like stepping on toes more than I have to. And in all honesty I really don't feel like pointing fingers at specific people in this forum. But the frequency of faulty arguments in climate change and evolution (which is different than genesis) threads does bother me. While I will refrain from engaging in anything more inflammatory than I have to, I am tempted to call people out who can't remember concepts that were explained 5 posts up.
Quote
If they have picked the wrong side of things outside their line of work, it probably means that they haven't studied these issues as closely as you seem to have. (What is your science background, by the way?) Most lay-people get their ideas about science from people they trust, because they don't have the training or interest to pore over the thousands of articles that you alluded to, and come to an oh-so-scientific conclusion.
Now, this probably means that they should be careful not to run their mouths on topics they don't understand. But when you talk about being taken seriously, I wonder by whom?. The person who needs to be convinced of the RKBA argument is just as likely to be put off by other conservative or libertarian points of view that seem abhorrent to them. What if Kopel professes the ridiculous notion that tax cuts increase revenue? What if he opines that abortion should be illegal or that gas prices are the result of supply and demand, rather than a shady cabal of oil men with ties to the White House? I don't think those things would hurt the cause any less. Anybody with an open mind to consider Kopel's views will also recognize that he can be solid on one issue and flaky on another.
Now, this probably means that they should be careful not to run their mouths on topics they don't understand. But when you talk about being taken seriously, I wonder by whom?. The person who needs to be convinced of the RKBA argument is just as likely to be put off by other conservative or libertarian points of view that seem abhorrent to them. What if Kopel professes the ridiculous notion that tax cuts increase revenue? What if he opines that abortion should be illegal or that gas prices are the result of supply and demand, rather than a shady cabal of oil men with ties to the White House? I don't think those things would hurt the cause any less. Anybody with an open mind to consider Kopel's views will also recognize that he can be solid on one issue and flaky on another.
I agree with this.
Post by: wacki on May 18, 2007, 08:12:54 PM
back when you were reading those articles in the 70's you missed the ones that touted the "jet contrail causing global cooling ones?
Multiple anonymous predictions.... :-p Contrails are a negative feedback but their effect is generally considered to be small. If you can find a single NAS assessment report that says otherwise I'd love to see it. If you can find a single peer review article that isn't on this list:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
I'd love to see it.
Quote
my grandfather used to laugh about the folks that predicted new yourk was gonna collapse socially cause they were running outa room for the horse manure.
Another anonymous prediction.... I really can't comment.
Quote
the pediatric docs changed direction 180 degrees without flinching with their back to sleep campaign
i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils
i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils
And yet another anonymous pediatrician. When will people learn? See this is what I'm talking about. Almost everyone here will (rightfully) slam the media because they can't get firearms right. Yet you somehow think the media accurately reports science? That seems a little inconsistent. If you can't give your sources in situations like this I'd appreciate it if you don't even bother posting in this thread. Anonymous sources are all but useless. And those that refuse to source are more than likely trolls.
Post by: Iain on May 19, 2007, 02:07:09 AM
My interest in this subject is not necessarily the science involved, but rather the public debate about the science. There are few subjects that I can think of where there are so many armchair experts, on both 'sides'.
I'm interested in where you think the opposition to anthropogenic global warming begins. The lay person who rejects it cannot really claim to be doing so based entirely on scientific understanding, that's probably going to upset some. There are one or two obvious sources, clearly the energy industry is paying for some of it.
Perhaps much less widespread I have also come across the idea of global warming as 'idolatry' (man as false god and false devil), but that isn't a universal Christian attitude, nor is it the sole source for opposition amongst religious groups. Politics informs here too, Christian groups on either side are claiming that their attitude is the Christian one. If parts of the American church reject it, there are as many worldwide who accept it.
Then we have the 'experts know nothing' attitude, which is curiously not applied to those few who are called 'skeptics'.
There was a report recently about media coverage that found that sensationalistic media reports have an adverse affect on public perception. This is why I found Wunsch's response to his 'Swindling' very interesting. So there is perhaps a certain degree of over-exposure, climate-fatigue going on. That would seem to be the source for a lot of opposition I've read here (UK). Despite TGGWS being aired recently, there is no media exposure for Bellamy, Stott et al on the scale that there seems to be in the American media. So for every media-exposed Brit who thinks that the Gulf Stream is in imminent danger but doesn't know albedo from albino then perhaps there is the 'global warming is a myth' media-exposed American who doesn't know err, albedo from albino.
Politically the climate is different here too. Lawson not withstanding (and he's now a Lord so not much power) there isn't political opposition to it from any notable figures, there is no British Inhofe berating scientists in public hearings that I can think of. This probably only adds weight to the assumption of some that this is a left/right thing, as apparently there is no European right. It does seem to be a roughly left/right thing in the US though, not strictly, but there is a trend.
These are just odds and ends of thoughts. I find the rejection of much scientific evidence and the wholesale adopting of other, much more limited, evidence and opinion by non-scientists to be fascinating.
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 08:43:03 AM
Wacki - I'm conscious that I pointed this thread out to you, and now you feel a little uneasy and even unwelcome. It wasn't my intention that this would happen, nor did I expect it.
Actually I've been surprised at how civil everyone is here. I've engaged in debate where there was a good 50/50 split on this topic and name calling and insults where the norm. None of that has really happened here and I am in the clear minority. That is rather refreshing. The only thing that bothers me about this thread is that the worldwide consensus on climate change is pretty strong:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/worldwide-consensus-on-climate-change.html
Basically 90% of the planet is on what I believe is the correct side of the debate. The scientific consensus is so strong and the skeptics are so populated with frauds and a complete lack of legitimate counter theories that it really is a no brainer for me. Yet despite this it seems that the vast majority of pro-RKBA people tend to support the skeptics and the frauds. Looking at the above histogram this puts a large portion of the pro-RKBA community in the bottom 8% of the world. I am a strong supporter of the 2A, and that little number is very disturbing to me.
Quote
My interest in this subject is not necessarily the science involved, but rather the public debate about the science.
I find the rejection of much scientific evidence and the wholesale adopting of other, much more limited, evidence and opinion by non-scientists to be fascinating.
I find the rejection of much scientific evidence and the wholesale adopting of other, much more limited, evidence and opinion by non-scientists to be fascinating.
This is a good book for you to read then:
I don't consider Chris Mooney to be a very good writer on this topic as he makes arguments poorly and he overlooks some obvious abuses of science. But his information is accurate and I certainly learned a lot from that book. There is a war on science from both the left and the right. Politicians have learned that shooting the messenger, lying, and calling to authority (buying a few Ph.D.'s) is more effective than arguing ideology and complex historical concepts. This book discussing how this new form of debate evolved after WWII. Get the hardcover as it's the most recent version and has updates at the end of certain chapters.
I've thought long and hard about writing a similar book. Mooney just doesn't have the background to understand how screwed up certain situations are. I also don't think he does a very good job at explaining certain concepts. But the book is certainly something anyone interested in science related politics needs to read.
Since there are a lot of conservatives here this should be something many people here will find interesting. The stem cell debate has been a very hot topic for about a decade. The left is pushing embryonic (abortion) stem cells. The right is pushing adult stem cells. Both sides twists their facts. And caught in the middle is a friend of mine. Apparently the difference between ESC (embryonic) and ASC's (adult) is purely theoretical. There is potential, but no novel therapies have currently been developed from ESC's that can't be used with ASC's. My friend ( a NIH researcher) has been campaigning for years trying to get a law passed to simply require doctors to ask people if they want to donate their cord blood. It's a simple question. It costs nothing more than hot air and a little ink on a piece of paper. Doctors are already required to ask certain questions so why not ask one more? Cord blood (from the umbilical cord) is normally thrown in the trash. Yet it is a rich source of stem cells. If we just asked people if they were willing to donate it instead of throw it away tremendous amounts of stem cells would reach the market as well as research labs. This would greatly increase the rate which we can research things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Unfortunately the left doesn't want this to happen. And the right seems extremely slow to catch on to an insanely obvious and incredibly powerful weapon to support their anti-abortion battle. So the bills that are introduced telling doctors to ask 1 single question get squashed year after year. And in turn lots of people die from diseases that may have been cured by now.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 11:39:46 AM
I posted this same point in the other thread, but you are correct it is more a political battle than a scientific one.
I don't think anyone with half a brain says global warming isn't happening, the argument is over the degree to which humans are responsible and what should be done about it.
In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".
Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.
That's where my problem comes in. The deliberate claims by individuals in the enviro and scientific community of "worst-case" scenarios solely to garner the political and economic change they want. When, from within the consensing scientific community come corrections and statements contradicting them, they simply move on to the next Chicken Little scenario to advance their political and economic goals.
The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.
Post by: Iain on May 19, 2007, 12:00:14 PM
The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly. Stories like this get a lot of media play, I'm not sure that there is a deliberate attempt by the whole scientific community to push these stories. They get media play because 'Global Warming will cause big freeze - millions feared dead by 2020' will always get more media attention than the more measured scientific analysis. Scientific analysis that refers to these events as possible but extremely unlikely.
I'll bring Carl Wunsch up again. After he felt he was duped by the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary he released a statement that says an awful lot about how measured an individual he is.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response
Quote
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost
surely has a major human-induced component. But
I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because
all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between
what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening,
is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical
excess...
...I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also
are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.
surely has a major human-induced component. But
I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because
all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between
what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening,
is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical
excess...
...I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also
are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.
On the basis of this, Wunsch is innocent of charges. I'd prefer that we default to the position that most in fact are innocent of the charges you lay, not all. The greatest guilt lies with sensationalistic media coverage, that as I alluded to above, as recently been demonstrated to be seriously counter-productive.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2007, 12:10:07 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 12:21:59 PM
I should have been more clear. Some scientists may be socialist asses and allow that to sway, not necessarily their research but rather the recommendations they make based on it, but almost uniformly the folks who make and push into the media spotlight the apocalyptic worst case (and scientifically tenuous) scenarios (such as the Gulf Stream's shift and others) ARE most definitely socialist statist asses. That's not really debateable based on their own statements.
The Green Party, the enviro-wing of our Democratic Party, Earth First, PETA, Greenpeace, Sea Rescue and all the other fringe environmentalists seize on any research that hints to human responsibility as support for their neo-Luddite and self-specie-hating agenda. They then promulgate the most extreme interpretation of that science to garner support for their radical (and counter-freedom) political and economic aims.
I would like to see more like Wunsch going the extra mile to counter media sensationalism. Their research is providing the fuel, some of their peers are deliberately fanning the flames, they, the dispassionate moderates, have a moral responsibility to help manage the fires that result or they will deserve being lumped in with the asses.
Write editorial letters when the London or NY Times spout off some apocalyptic nonsense. Iterate again and again the facts and solid theories and emphasize that policy making and responses should be left in the hands of the people and their representatives, not handed down as dictat by conclaves of scientists.
Post by: Iain on May 19, 2007, 01:02:59 PM
you fellers familiar with the panel presentation where the audience was polled before and after a pro con presentation involving amongst others michael chricton? and how quiclky the folks changed position once they heard both sides?
I'm familiar with it. The nature of public debate and understanding being what it is, I don't put a lot of store in it. It's certainly interesting, but it tells us a lot more about where the public debate is at than where the scientific debate is at. I believe one of the panelists hinted at something like this, and I get the impression it turned the room against him.
We've had accusations that consensus amongst scientists is not science, so I hardly think that consensus amongst a public audience tells us more than perhaps a bit of sociology.
carebear - I'm afraid that with the debate as it is, guys like Wunsch are getting burned. Wunsch agreed to appear on the Great Global Warming Swindle in order to talk about his concerns with sensationalistic coverage, the result was that small parts of his comments were cut and paste into a larger polemic, the aim of which was seemingly concealed from him.
Also, it seems to me that the attempts at global warming related dictat are coming from the representatives of the people, elected or self-styled. I've not seen nor read much about Gore's film, it may be an important contribution, but for certain sectors of the American political landscape pretty much only Hilary going on about global warming would be worse. I don't know about solutions, but all the 'stop flying peasant' stuff is coming from political or non-scientific figures. Prince Charles appears to be doing his best to do as he says though.
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 01:21:15 PM
you fellers familiar with the panel presentation where the audience was polled before and after a pro con presentation involving amongst others michael chricton? and how quiclky the folks changed position once they heard both sides?
The debate you are talking about can be downloaded here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
One of the key arguments used by the skeptics was that the sun was causing global warming. Please read this link:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
look at the pretty side by side graphs and tell me if you think that the sun is responsible for the warming. The vast majority of arguments put forth during this debate by the skeptics were little more than nice sounding sound bites that had little or not truth to them. I hope my sun example is more than enough proof of this. I love science, but this talk was one of the final nails in the coffin (of which there were many) that convinced me that I'd be wasting my time trying to help humanity out through grant funded research. It's sad because the vast majority of interesting developments come through non-profit research. People are just way too easily fooled and it's impossible to grab everyone one by one and explain everything to them. And I constantly wonder whether or not people in general are just too dumb, too busy to learn (I will admit it takes a lot of reading to understand climate change), or just don't care. And so I've stopped caring, started shooting and dating a lot more, and I'm a whole lot happier.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2007, 01:28:55 PM
and why do you suppose some of the oldtimers aren't so behind the chicken lil guys? its a failing of mine that i sometimes favor experience over enthusiasm
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 01:49:54 PM
I don't think anyone with half a brain says global warming isn't happening,
Good
Quote
the argument is over the degree to which humans are responsible and what should be done about it.
Actually the debate really isn't in the past. The debate is how much will the global temps rise once we get to 550ppm CO2.
Quote
In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".
Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.
Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.
I've worked for 7 different labs and companies in multiple states (including MA) and I've never met an enviro hippie technology hating scientist. Claiming that scientists hate technology is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Who do you think spends their entire life studying very difficult subjects just to invent new toys for other people to play with? Claiming a NASA rocket scientist hates technology and wants us to become peasants is one argument that just baffles me.
Quote
That's where my problem comes in. The deliberate claims by individuals in the enviro and scientific community of "worst-case" scenarios solely to garner the political and economic change they want.
Most of these "worst-case" scenarios are based of high sensitivity to 550ppm CO2. That is what the IPCC report is based off of. After attending a lecture by Nate Lewis I find the 'goal' of stabilizing at 550ppm CO2 to be a bit of a stretch. I think it will take a massive effort to stabilize at 750ppm and therefore 550ppm will be a miracle. The significance of the difference between these two numbers is enormous. James Hansen was worried that a 5 degree C sensitivity to 550ppm would wipe countries like Bangladesh (174 million people) off of the map due to sea level rise (80' rise over 4 centuries).
Quote
The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131It is also of my opinion, and many others, that the odds of 98% of the ocean coral going extinct by mid century from ocean acidification is going to be damn near 99%.
Quote
When, from within the consensing scientific community come corrections and statements contradicting them, they simply move on to the next Chicken Little scenario to advance their political and economic goals.
Pick up a copy of Science. Carbon trading is hotly debated in the scientific community. I personally do not support carbon trading even though I can understand why others would.
Quote
The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.
Try listening to the NAS press releases of their assessment reports. They are, from what I can tell, impartial. The IPCC report is pretty damn good as well. A lot of scientists I know refuse to talk to reporters via anything other than e-mail because they are so frequently misquoted. I have little or no faith in news sources that are driven by ratings and advertisements.
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 01:52:27 PM
so how do you smarter than the average bear folks account for the rises on the other planets? someone using too many areosol cans there?
If you scroll 20 posts up you will find the answer:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114922#msg114922
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 01:54:56 PM
The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly. Stories like this get a lot of media play, I'm not sure that there is a deliberate attempt by the whole scientific community to push these stories. They get media play because 'Global Warming will cause big freeze - millions feared dead by 2020' will always get more media attention than the more measured scientific analysis. Scientific analysis that refers to these events as possible but extremely unlikely.
The "propoganda" (inhofes words) blog realclimate.org also report that thermohaline failure is unlikely:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2007, 01:55:29 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine:
"I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial last April for The Wall Street Journal:
"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.
"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Michaels, professor of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, State Climatologist for Virginia in an email interview:
"In climate science, we only have two things: data (the past) and models or hypotheses (the future). The data show us that distribution of warming since the mid-1970s is consistent with what one would expect from an enhanced carbon dioxide-related greenhouse effect. The ensemble behavior of our models is that, once this warming is initiated, it tends to take place at a constant (rather than an ever-increasing) rate. Indeed this has been the case for the last three decades.
"Consequently we know, with considerable confidence, the rate of warming for the policy-foreseeable future, and it is about 0.85 degrees Celsius, [1.53 degrees Fahrenheit] per half-century. This is near the low end of projections made by the United Nations. However, there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming."
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html
more concensus
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 02:01:16 PM
Please read these articles on your experts:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
They have a rather colorful history that should not be ignored. I'm repeating myself and you don't appear to be reading this thread.
Post by: Iain on May 19, 2007, 02:08:51 PM
Wacki can cover the science. In the meantime I'm curious as to why you'd choose to believe your guys over the rest. In your national geographic link for instance we find this
Quote
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Now I don't have the scientific expertise to know whether or not the guy is right, but I do know this - when Wilson says that it is completely at odds with mainstream scientific opinion - that is true.
So on what are you basing your rejection of mainstream scientific opinion?
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 02:15:52 PM
So on what are you basing your rejection of mainstream scientific opinion?
Just to make it clear to others I didn't post that article (cassandrasdaddy did) and I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said conflicts with the mainstream opinion.
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
If we're going to turn this thread (or this forum) into a series of 'your link/my link' battles we aren't going to be learning much.
If you are going to form an educated opinion on this topic you need to understand the history of the leading skeptics. When you read these articles please keep in mind these three are supposed to be the best the skeptics have. I suggest you start with Pat Michaels as his bio is the easiest to understand.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 02:24:50 PM
Quote
In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".
Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.
Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.
I've worked for 7 different labs and companies in multiple states (including MA) and I've never met an enviro hippie technology hating scientist. Claiming that scientists hate technology is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Who do you think spends their entire life studying very difficult subjects just to invent new toys for other people to play with? Claiming a NASA rocket scientist hates technology and wants us to become peasants is one argument that just baffles me.
You are completely misreading me. Read again without the chip on your shoulder blocking your view.
I was pretty careful to distinguish between responsible scientists and the non-scientist enviro wackos and their "many" (admittedly an overstatement) and albeit mainly focused in Europe, socialist scientist sympathisers who support their gloom-and-doom pronouncements of the worst case. Most scientists, socialist or otherwise, obviously aren't Luddites, that'd be the non-sci wackos, and even the anti-Western capitalist-style development scientists aren't against tech in general, they just want to be the ones driving the train instead of individuals making choices in a free market determining which technological developments they want to support with their tax and free-market dollars.
Such socialist-minded scientists are promoting, outside of their actual fields, political and economic solutions like government or supra-government mandates and prohibitions (Kyoto and the ilk) on consumption and allowable technologies, which is technocratic statism at its worst.
Quote
Quote
The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.
Try listening to the NAS press releases of their assessment reports. They are pretty, from what I can tell, impartial. The IPCC report is pretty damn good as well. A lot of scientists I know refuse to talk to reporters via anything other than e-mail because they are so frequently misquoted. I have little or no faith in news sources that are driven by ratings and advertisements.
Impartial press releases are fine, but if you have to go looking for them, they're a little futile. How about forcefully denouncing in any media available any misquote, misstatement or outright lie. If the idiot shouting lies (and making you look bad by association) on the corner belongs to your club, it's your job to go shut him up or stand next to him shouting the truth. Not sit back in the clubhouse, tut-tut-ing and occasionally publishing a demurral in the club newsletter.
Post by: Iain on May 19, 2007, 02:36:05 PM
If we're going to turn this thread (or this forum) into a series of 'your link/my link' battles we aren't going to be learning much.
If you are going to form an educated opinion on this topic you need to understand the history of the leading skeptics. When you read these articles please keep in mind these three are supposed to be the best the skeptics have. I suggest you start with Pat Michaels as his bio is the easiest to understand.
Err, I was talking to cassandrasdaddy. In both cases where you have quoted me.
I'm perfectly happy to believe that you understand, in cases, wrote, the content of your links. Thus interjecting them is useful. My objection to this thread becoming a series of links about who said what in objection to global warming is that we could post everything that Lindzen et al have ever said about global warming, but I'd be no closer to understanding why they are believed and all the others are dismissed.
I've been reading the link about Gray. Found his exchange with Boxer interesting, would sort of like to know about his previous exchange with Inhofe though, I bet that was much cosier.
There are two streams to the conversation here, one is scientific and the other is more like amateur sociology. I hope they can continue to co-exist in this thread as I believe that they inform one another.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2007, 02:46:11 PM
i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils
And yet another anonymous pediatrician. When will people learn? See this is what I'm talking about. Almost everyone here will (rightfully) slam the media because they can't get firearms right. Yet you somehow think the media accurately reports science? That seems a little inconsistent. If you can't give your sources in situations like this I'd appreciate it if you don't even bother posting in this thread. Anonymous sources are all but useless. And those that refuse to source are more than likely trolls.
anonymous doc? let me guess no kids? it was one of those august groups of experts that issued both proclamations. for decades it was put em to sleep on the belly then the new improved research came in ad we turn and run back the other way.
Post by: wacki on May 19, 2007, 02:58:50 PM
You are completely misreading me. Read again without the chip on your shoulder blocking your view.
I was pretty careful to distinguish between responsible scientists and the non-scientist enviro wackos and their "many" (admittedly an overstatement) and albeit mainly focused in Europe, socialist scientist sympathisers who support their gloom-and-doom pronouncements of the worst case. Most scientists, socialist or otherwise, obviously aren't Luddites, that'd be the non-sci wackos, and even the anti-Western capitalist-style development scientists aren't against tech in general,
I was pretty careful to distinguish between responsible scientists and the non-scientist enviro wackos and their "many" (admittedly an overstatement) and albeit mainly focused in Europe, socialist scientist sympathisers who support their gloom-and-doom pronouncements of the worst case. Most scientists, socialist or otherwise, obviously aren't Luddites, that'd be the non-sci wackos, and even the anti-Western capitalist-style development scientists aren't against tech in general,
My apologies. When you said this: "Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved" I thought you were labeling a large portion of the scientists as enviro's. Apparently that is not the case. There are documentaries out which make the arguments that I thought you were making. But in all honesty I'm not mad right now. I'm more bored than anything else.
Quote
Such socialist-minded scientists are promoting, outside of their actual fields, political and economic solutions like government or supra-government mandates and prohibitions (Kyoto and the ilk) on consumption and allowable technologies, which is technocratic statism at its worst.
meh.... the impact of Kyoto was blown way out of proportion. It could have been implemented in the US and I doubt anyone would have noticed. It's impact on coal would have been a fraction of what gasoline prices have changed in the last week alone. It was a stepping stone and little more. That being said I don't think Kyoto is a very good plan. Like any complex system, it's just too easily abused. I'm a huge supporter of a Apollo Energy program. Develop new technologies, break oil's monopoly on the transportation market, and then let capitalism take over. As of right now there is little or no competition in the energy market. I mean lead acid batteries are the best option for your car and those were invented in the civil war. Energy is the largest industry on the planet, the largest polluter on the planet, and yet it spends one of the lowest amounts on R&D percentage wise.
Quote
Impartial press releases are fine, but if you have to go looking for them, they're a little futile. How about forcefully denouncing in any media available any misquote, misstatement or outright lie. If the idiot shouting lies (and making you look bad by association) on the corner belongs to your club, it's your job to go shut him up or stand next to him shouting the truth. Not sit back in the clubhouse, tut-tut-ing and occasionally publishing a demurral in the club newsletter.
Grant funded scientists do not have an easy life. They work long hours and they barely have enough time to discuss their own research with reporters let alone read every single newspaper article out there. My boss works from 7AM-11PM 6 days a week. Money is scarce and getting that next grant can be very stressful. That being said there are some scientists that go the extra mile and do exactly what you are talking about. Check out the blogs on SEED magazine as well as realclimate.org. The problem with that is that blogs are not peer review and mistakes will be made. That being said the NAS was created to do exactly what you are asking them to do. If you have a better method i'd love to hear it. As it is grant funded science is one of the hardest working and least paid professional fields I know of.
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 19, 2007, 08:06:40 PM
Quote
Dont' feed the troll....
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html
He's got a lot of posts over on THR. So what if global warming is a hot button issue for him - there are plenty of others around here the same, at least one who cuts and pastes endless articles in new threads and never responds to any posts, he doesn't get labelled a troll.
http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html
He's got a lot of posts over on THR. So what if global warming is a hot button issue for him - there are plenty of others around here the same, at least one who cuts and pastes endless articles in new threads and never responds to any posts, he doesn't get labelled a troll.
Wacki = Nematocyst-870?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 08:21:49 PM
Again, if they aren't getting press, they aren't trying hard enough. If that leads to "the public" or some policy makers not respecting them and they have a beef with that, they have only themselves to blame as they are failing to compete in the market of ideas.
And, from a market perspective, I'm against publically-funded grant research on principle. If investors want to spend their own money on research and can know that whatever comes of it won't be stolen (for "the public good") or taxed/regulated out of profitability by government I don't see the need. We create regulatory strictures on private science to make it unprofitable and then perversely insist that we need to spend tax money to get anything done.
Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation. Remove the ability of government to regulate, really remove it, not the "deregulation" farce of recent history, and the situation would reverse pretty quickly.
But that is not what those who currently hold the floor by volume and vehemence, the extremists, will allow to happen, as they insist that government-driven political and economic statist solutions are the best, if not only, way. And they are aided and abetted, tacitly if not actively, by public-grant financed scientists to whom dissent could mean a loss of professional standing and livelihood and so who do not stand boldly against their unscientific alarmism.
If we pull the prop of public money and government-supported monopoly out from under them, the whole house of cards will fall and pure, honest, profit-driven science can inform the decisionmaking process.
Post by: wacki on May 20, 2007, 12:08:00 AM
Quote
Again, if they aren't getting press, they aren't trying hard enough. If that leads to "the public" or some policy makers not respecting them and they have a beef with that, they have only themselves to blame as they are failing to compete in the market of ideas.
Scientists aren't lobbyists. They are researchers. Their message is freely available via internet. If they aren't getting the press it's because people would rather find out what britney spears's cooch looks like or who anna nicole smith's daddy is.
Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation. Remove the ability of government to regulate, really remove it, not the "deregulation" farce of recent history, and the situation would reverse pretty quickly.
.......
If we pull the prop of public money and government-supported monopoly out from under them, the whole house of cards will fall and pure, honest, profit-driven science can inform the decisionmaking process.
.......
If we pull the prop of public money and government-supported monopoly out from under them, the whole house of cards will fall and pure, honest, profit-driven science can inform the decisionmaking process.
Well you are correct that the government subsidizes the military but for the wrong reasons. If you take all the money used to stabilize oil rich countries (via military or other means) and instead tack that tax onto each gallon of gasoline then the price of gas will increase somewhere between $1.50 and $3 a gallon. At current prices that would mean gasoline would be between $4.80 and $6.30 a gallon. In contrast an apollo program could be funded with only a 5 cent tax. But as you say you are "against publically-funded grant research on principle". So I guess you would prefer the $6.30 a gallon. Even with gas being at $6.30 a gallon the research probably wouldn't be done as that is the going price of gas in many countries in europe. There are basically two entities that can spend a few billion a year to research energy. They are the oil companies and the government. The oil companies sure as hell aren't going to give up on their cash cow. Especially not since they are currently breaking historical records for profits. Not even microsoft can compete with Exxon and friends.
The only other regulation the government uses to protect oil is property rights. Do you want to give up property rights?
Post by: wacki on May 20, 2007, 12:22:53 AM
Quote
Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation.
Btw, I currently work in pharmaceuticals. Specifically I'm developing new medicines to treat brain cancer. I have experience in both grant funded and private research. Pharmaceutical companies generally don't do the groundwork when it comes to medicine. University researchers tend to do the groundwork and the drug companies tend to finish the job. Drug companies also ignore vaccines like the plague because the real money is in treatment and not cures. Drug companies spend more money hiring 22 year old hot blonds to peddle their drugs than they do hiring Ph.D.'s to develop new drugs. To give you an idea, a 22 year old hot blond that majored in art will typically earn the same amount of money flirting with doctors to sell scripts as a Ph.D. does developing the very same drugs the blond is trying to sell.
So I find it a bit ironic that you use medicine as an argument against grant research. When you are talking about monopolies on medicine, I assume that you are against patents too? Otherwise I'm not sure what monopoly you are talking about.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 20, 2007, 05:07:26 AM
Quote
Scientists aren't lobbyists. They are researchers.
Only when they are fully funded. 
Post by: wacki on May 20, 2007, 08:26:49 AM
Quote
Scientists aren't lobbyists. They are researchers.
Only when they are fully funded. I hear this argument so often but I'd love to see the empirical evidence for this. Why exactly do you believe this?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 20, 2007, 06:10:26 PM
Post by: richyoung on May 21, 2007, 04:59:49 AM
carebear, can't say I agree about the socialist asses thing, it may be true.
The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly.
The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly.
More alarmist horsepucky. The only way tot stop the Gulf Stream is to:
A. Move the continents
B. Empty the Atlantic Ocean.
C. Stop the Earth from revolving about its axis.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately deceptive, or completely ignorant of the most basic Newtonian physics.
Post by: richyoung on May 21, 2007, 05:05:38 AM
Scientists aren't lobbyists.
The heck they aren't. Nothing loosens the public purse strings like "You're all gonna DIE! .... .... .... (maybe. We need $$$ to study it.)" See: Ozone Hole.
Post by: wacki on May 21, 2007, 05:15:36 AM
Scientists aren't lobbyists.
The heck they aren't. Nothing loosens the public purse strings like "You're all gonna DIE! .... .... .... (maybe. We need $$$ to study it.)" See: Ozone Hole.
'I do not lobby for more climate funding. If you ask anyone who has actually interviewed me, they will say that what I say is "We don't need more research money to deal with the issue as to what needs to be done. ".' -Andrew Weaver Ph.D.
Btw your argument has been made before..... by the tobacco lobby. As a side note here is a clip from one of my favorite movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOyk-UwHiH4
Now doesn't your argument start to feel a little silly?
lots more countering this argument here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html
Post by: richyoung on May 21, 2007, 08:34:14 AM
Scientists aren't lobbyists.
The heck they aren't. Nothing loosens the public purse strings like "You're all gonna DIE! .... .... .... (maybe. We need $$$ to study it.)" See: Ozone Hole.
'I do not lobby for more climate funding. If you ask anyone who has actually interviewed me, they will say that what I say is "We don't need more research money to deal with the issue as to what needs to be done. ".' -Andrew Weaver Ph.D.
Btw your argument has been made before..... by the tobacco lobby. As a side note here is a clip from one of my favorite movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOyk-UwHiH4
Now doesn't your argument start to feel a little silly?
lots more countering this argument here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html
Tris, Alar, "Unsafe at any speed", DDT, the Ozone Hole, "The Population Bomb", the 1970's 'Comming Ice Age" AKA "The Catastrophic Cool-down" , Global Warming AKA "The Harrowing Heat-up", mercury in fish, Malthus, "Acid Rain", eat margarine not butter, oops eat butter not margarine, brush your teeth sideways, brush your teeth up and down...no, I don't feel silly. Who SHOULD feel silly is:
1. Anyone denying that water vapor is the predominent driver of the greenhouse effect on Earth - to the tune of in excess of 90% WHEN the reflective nature of cloud formations is taken into acount - which it ISN'T by those citing a less than 90% figure, (I submit deliberately disengenuously....)
2. Anyone making trend claims in excess of 2 decades for global temperature, when we only have 3 decades of good data for a phenomenon we already KNOW swings between periodic Ice Ages and warm periods.
3. Anyone who thinks CO2 is a LEADING indicator of rising temperatures - it is a TRAILING indicator. Watch what hapens to your soda as it heats up - the ocean works the same way.
4. Anyone who thinks mankind can have anything more than a local, temporary effect on climate.
5. Anyone who thinks Kyoto Treaty would have made a signifigant difference in global temperature
6. Anyone who thinks elevated CO2 levels are harmful.
7. Anyone who thinks slightly elevated night-time temperatures during the growing season are harmful.
8. Anyone who thinks longer growing seasons that extend further north and south are harmful.
9. Anyone who believes Al Gore's propaganda movie.
Post by: Iain on May 22, 2007, 01:21:32 AM
DDT was never banned for anti-malarial purposes in developing countries. Its agricultural use was restricted to slow down the rapid spread of resistance.
The so-called ozone hole is a real issue. What is commonly called the 'ozone hole' was not first observed in the 1950's and the mechanism is well understood.
The 'Ice Age' issue has already been addressed multiple times in this thread. It was not a widespread prediction, nor was it a mainstream opinion - to compare it to the literature on global warming is disingenuous.
The rest of the claims about global warming are neatly discussed here
Again, as non-scientists, non-experts in these disciplines, it all comes down to who you choose to believe. Wacki?
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:38:43 AM
Tris, Alar, "Unsafe at any speed", DDT, the Ozone Hole, "The Population Bomb", the 1970's 'Comming Ice Age" AKA "The Catastrophic Cool-down" , Global Warming AKA "The Harrowing Heat-up", mercury in fish, Malthus, "Acid Rain", eat margarine not butter, oops eat butter not margarine, brush your teeth sideways, brush your teeth up and down...no, I don't feel silly. Who SHOULD feel silly is:
Tris: I'm not familiar with that controversy and I used it almost every day during my thesis
Alar: um...... the scientists defended alar while meryl streep when on a rampage
Any speed: again don't know anything about it, sounds statistical.....
mercury: that's a real problem and anyone that denies it needs to get their head checked
Malthus: not familiar, enlighten me please?
Acid Rain: Not even senator inhofe denies this. Are you really a skeptic on this?
Quote
2. Anyone making trend claims in excess of 2 decades for global temperature, when we only have 3 decades of good data for a phenomenon we already KNOW swings between periodic Ice Ages and warm periods.
Ever heard of ice cores?
Quote
3. Anyone who thinks CO2 is a LEADING indicator of rising temperatures - it is a TRAILING indicator. Watch what hapens to your soda as it heats up - the ocean works the same way.
This is one of my favorite tests to see if someone doesn't understand the simple mechanism of positive feedbacks. Your argument is like saying the methane released by the permafrost when it melts isn't a greenhouse gas because the earth was heating before the permafrost melted. It never ceases to amaze me when people admit there is more than one greenhouse gas yet the one that not only correlates most accurately with recent temp swings but checks out perfectly with simple black body physics has nothing to do with the temperature increase.
Quote
6. Anyone who thinks elevated CO2 levels are harmful.
May I suggest that you move to venus then? mean temp: 482°C, lots of CO2
Also, to deny ocean acidification by carbonic acid (CO2 driven) and the mass extinctions that will follow is to deny/ignore concepts taught in highschool level chemistry. So wherever you are getting your information from I would certainly check out another source. Also lets not forget the largest extinction known in history (96% of all marine species and 70% of all terrestrial animal species) was driven not by an asteroid but hyperactive volcanoes emitting CO2. Google: "Great Dying" Tied to Global Warming.
But if it makes you feel better, I'm not a fan of Al Gore or Kyoto.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:55:04 AM
Again, as non-scientists, non-experts in these disciplines, it all comes down to who you choose to believe. Wacki?
I really dislike asking this question. We have only discussed the top 3 skeptics. These are the best and most active skeptics in the world and yet one of them (Michaels) screwed up highschool level math and fraudulently edited Hansen's graphs. I hope everyone here can agree on this. Again, these are the top three. Once you get away from these three the quality of the skeptics/deniers goes downhill at alarming speeds. Most of these guys are remnants from the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" industry campaign.
If you can't understand the science of climate change (which isn't that hard, time consuming yes, but not that hard) then I suggest people do a little research into the history of the skeptics and see if you want to trust someone that doesn't believe tobacco causes cancer.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:59:58 AM
3. Anyone who thinks CO2 is a LEADING indicator of rising temperatures - it is a TRAILING indicator. Watch what hapens to your soda as it heats up - the ocean works the same way.
A much more thorough retort than what I wrote earlier:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/lags-not-leads.html
Plenty of pictures as well as some scary stats.
Post by: Iain on May 22, 2007, 03:12:05 AM
To go back to Russell, I'm a non-expert and my formal science education ended (rather gloriously though) at 18, I can't hold too much as certain when I don't understand it. What I can do is question why the claims of Singer, Lindzen and others (notably Milloy) are so unquestioningly accepted by non-experts. They represent a tiny portion of the scientific community and they are very much out on a limb.
Without examining the science in detail, their minority position does not necessarily make them wrong, but it does mean (to me at least) that their opinion should be regarded as much less certain by non-experts than that to which they object.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 04:04:37 AM
What I can do is question why the claims of Singer, Lindzen and others (notably Milloy) are so unquestioningly accepted by non-experts. They represent a tiny portion of the scientific community and they are very much out on a limb.
Here is a nice quote from milloy back when the ozone layer is controversial:
Quote
The problem with this theory is that the chlorine molecules in Freon are heavier than air; they settle to the ground upon release - many tens of thousands of feet below the ozone layer.
- Freon Superstitions, Washington Times, May 18, 1999 Steven MilloyWhile it is true that chlorine is heavier than air the difference isn't that great. To give you an idea how meaningless the difference is, here is a satellite picture of a dust storm:
This dust will travel all the way across the atlantic and land in Panama. Now, what is heavier sand or freon gas? His argument is so dumb because you can just hop in a balloon and run a test for CFCs. We have satellites that can see the CFCs in the upper atmosphere. These are the kind of jarringly stupid mistakes these hacks make all the time. So many of these 'consensus skeptics' are either incompetent scientists or incompetent liars. And it amazes me that the public hasn't caught on to just how bad the skeptics are. This is especially true when Exxon is giving out $10,000 rewards to anyone willing to debate climate change. I think I've seen one, and only one, climate change skeptic that wasn't either incompetent or habitually misleading while actually engaging in scientific debate. And yet these hacks get more airplay per person in mainstream news than the real scientists.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 22, 2007, 04:31:47 AM
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 04:39:44 AM
We've been through all this before, nothing that anyone could post is ever going to change your mind. For the sake of those interested though, there are one or two things that should be said. I'm not going to bother citing everything I put down here because what I'm about to write is what the mainstream scientific (and non-scientific) opinion is. If you're interested research somewhere other than Milloy's junkscience (or any other rabidly anti-environmentalist source) will clarify. As such, these are not my opinions, nor are they based on my understanding, they are what the scientific community is saying.
DDT was never banned for anti-malarial purposes in developing countries. Its agricultural use was restricted to slow down the rapid spread of resistance.
DDT was never banned for anti-malarial purposes in developing countries. Its agricultural use was restricted to slow down the rapid spread of resistance.
True - but disengenuous. As explained in the American Council On Science and Health article, "THE DDT BAN TURNS 30 Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths Likely " By Todd Seavey :
"WHO IS PREVENTING DDT USE?
Despite the cost in human lives, many groups stubbornly defend the ban. While the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and UNICEF have recommended continued DDT use, influential organizations such as the Norwegian Development Agency, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Swedish Aid Agency, and USAID the sorts of groups from whom some poor nations such as Belize, Mozambique, and Madagascar receive the majority of their public health money continue to insist that DDT be left out of malaria-control efforts.
Countries have found themselves faced with malaria upsurges due to pressure from such international aid organizations to avoid DDT use, according to a report in the March 11, 2000 British Medical Journal. The use of DDT in Mozambique, noted the Journal, "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."
The WHO estimates that malathion, the cheapest alternative to DDT, costs more than twice as much as DDT and must be sprayed twice as often, while another mosquito-fighting chemical, deltamethrin, is over three times as expensive, and the highly effective propoxur costs twenty-three times as much. For countries with minimal public health budgets, dependent on foreign aid, such substitutes are impractical. More importantly, there is no compelling public health reason to substitute these chemicals for DDT, which as stated is harmless to humans. "
So, de-facto, there IS a ban - and millions are dead - due to the same type of "Junk Science" that Global Warming is. How many are we gonna kill for THAT false god?
Quote
The so-called ozone hole is a real issue. What is commonly called the 'ozone hole' was not first observed in the 1950's and the mechanism is well understood.
The ozone hole is a NON-ISSUE. It can only occur at the South Pole, at the end of the Polar night, due to the polar vortex and the required temps. There is NOTHING at the South Pole to be effected by small increase in UV radiation, which, by the way, more UV hits the South Pole in the middle of the Polar Summer, due to the more favorable angle of incidence of the sunlight, DESPITE the lack of any "ozone hole".
Quote
The 'Ice Age' issue has already been addressed multiple times in this thread. It was not a widespread prediction, nor was it a mainstream opinion - to compare it to the literature on global warming is disingenuous.
Bubba, I lived through it. It was on TV, in the Reader's Digest, in the Sunday newspaper suppliments - ALL OVER. The only difference was there was SOME semblance of scientific restraint - unlike now.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 04:53:05 AM
But again, no one talks about how scientists get feted and get good press when they excoriate the Bush Administration for failing to ratify the piece of drekk known as Kyoto.
I will admit that the mass media does push Kyoto. But that is a political position the 'elite media' seems to love. I personally can't stand the idea and even the people that designed Kyoto will now admit it isn't working and is flawed.
What I'm angry about is the fact that Pat Michaels can perform such an obvious acts of fraud (1: editing graphs to make Hansen look like he was wrong, 2: debunking climate models that simply don't exist ) and yet the media seems not only completely oblivious but gives this guy twice as much airtime as any other climatologist. Then there is the fact that Milloy has a permanent position at Fox. Or how about the fact that Scientific American has invited the editors of the Wallstreet Journal Editorial board for a discussion with top climatologists about how the climate works. They gave the invitation to the WSJ because of the countless crappy editorials they were printing. The invitation has been open for several years and it has not been accepted. 6 months ago scientific american changed the invitation to a challenge.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D5C47-C124-1509-805C83414B7FFDB0
Their challenge has still gone unanswered. If that's not an obvious indication that the WSJ editorial board doesn't give a damn about truth then I don't know what is. Yet amazingly, the public doesn't seem aware of just how bad the situation is.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 04:54:47 AM
Bubba, I lived through it. It was on TV, in the Reader's Digest, in the Sunday newspaper suppliments - ALL OVER. The only difference was there was SOME semblance of scientific restraint - unlike now.
I challenge you to find 1 single assessment report that predicted global cooling via the NAS, Scope, MIT, or some other scientific organization. Good luck finding one.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html
You need to separate the scientist from the media just like you separate the truth about firearms from the media.
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 05:04:06 AM
Tris, Alar, "Unsafe at any speed", DDT, the Ozone Hole, "The Population Bomb", the 1970's 'Comming Ice Age" AKA "The Catastrophic Cool-down" , Global Warming AKA "The Harrowing Heat-up", mercury in fish, Malthus, "Acid Rain", eat margarine not butter, oops eat butter not margarine, brush your teeth sideways, brush your teeth up and down...no, I don't feel silly. Who SHOULD feel silly is:
Tris: I'm not familiar with that controversy and I used it almost every day during my thesis
Tris was chemical used to make fabric flame-resistant. At one point, it was "alleged" to cause cancer (what doesn't?), so alarmed parents god rid of their child's pajamas, curtains, and bedclothes treated with Tris. Result - extra deaths due to fire....
Quote
Alar: um...... the scientists defended alar while meryl streep when on a rampage
Any speed: again don't know anything about it, sounds statistical.....
Any speed: again don't know anything about it, sounds statistical.....
That was the book that made Ralph Nader famous - a slur upon the VW Beetle and the Chevy Corvair. The Beetle survived the junk science attack - the Corvair didn't.
Quote
mercury: that's a real problem and anyone that denies it needs to get their head checked
It may be a real problem, but it's NOT caused by industrial man. Do the math - all the mercury ever used by man would fit easily into 30 box cars. See the ocean? See how big it is? 30 boxcars of ANYTHING is literaly a drop in the ocean. Not to mention the fact that we GET mercury (and asbestos, and everything else...) from natural mineral deposits that are... constantly eroding into the sea. How do we know that man is not the problem? Because we went THROUGH this bullpucky already in the early 70's - it turned out that the women CLAIMING to get excess mercury from fish were eating fish to loose weight, and were also taking (and overdosing) on diuretics that containd...wait for it...MERCURY. Top that off when archeologists found 10,000 year-old anchovy remains that had... wait for it... EXACTLY THE SAME LEVELS OF MERCURY AS MODERN ANCHOVIES. That was enough tot put the stake in the heart of this PARTICULAR lie, until a few years ago, when it resurfaced.
Quote
Malthus: not familiar, enlighten me please?
What? Google not working? Malthus was the dude that said civilization was doomed because if cities continued to grow in population, the inhabitants would be buried in horse manure above their heads due to the cartage requirements. Among other stupidity.
Quote
Acid Rain: Not even senator inhofe denies this. Are you really a skeptic on this?
Some lakes are naturally acidic. In those areas, little to no fish grow. Guess what "Adirondack" means in English? It means "Bark eater". See, the Indians living there had no fish in their acidic lakes, so they had to eat bark - and I'm fairly sure it wasn't due to all the pre-pilgrim coal-fired electric generators. I * DO * recall it was the Canadians who made a big deal out of it - at the same time Canada had a huge surplus of hydroelectric power they wanted to sell south....things that make you go, "hmmm"...
Quote
Quote
2. Anyone making trend claims in excess of 2 decades for global temperature, when we only have 3 decades of good data for a phenomenon we already KNOW swings between periodic Ice Ages and warm periods.
Ever heard of ice cores?
Yep. Ice cores prove that CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming. They are not precise enough to use for climate modeling, for a variety of reasons.
Quote
Quote
3. Anyone who thinks CO2 is a LEADING indicator of rising temperatures - it is a TRAILING indicator. Watch what hapens to your soda as it heats up - the ocean works the same way.
This is one of my favorite tests to see if someone doesn't understand the simple mechanism of positive feedbacks. Your argument is like saying the methane released by the permafrost when it melts isn't a greenhouse gas because the earth was heating before the permafrost melted. It never ceases to amaze me when people admit there is more than one greenhouse gas yet the one that not only correlates most accurately with recent temp swings
Repeat after me..."Correlation is NOT proof of caustation. Correlation is NOT proof of a relationship." Keep repeating until it sinks in...
Quote
but checks out perfectly with simple black body physics has nothing to do with the temperature increase.
Big ball of fire in sky. No thermostat.
Quote
Quote
6. Anyone who thinks elevated CO2 levels are harmful.
May I suggest that you move to venus then? mean temp: 482°C, lots of CO2
CO2 is PLANT FOOD - they need it like we need oxygen. Higher CO2 levels, greater drop yields.
[/quote]
Also, to deny ocean acidification by carbonic acid (CO2 driven) and the mass extinctions that will follow is to deny/ignore concepts taught in highschool level chemistry. So wherever you are getting your information from I would certainly check out another source. Also lets not forget the largest extinction known in history (96% of all marine species and 70% of all terrestrial animal species) was driven not by an asteroid but hyperactive volcanoes emitting CO2. Google: "Great Dying" Tied to Global Warming.
But if it makes you feel better, I'm not a fan of Al Gore or Kyoto.
[/quote]
Perhaps you are unaware that CO2 levels have been many times the present level in the past with no ill effects for life?
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 05:13:12 AM
Bubba, I lived through it. It was on TV, in the Reader's Digest, in the Sunday newspaper suppliments - ALL OVER. The only difference was there was SOME semblance of scientific restraint - unlike now.
I challenge you to find 1 single assessment report that predicted global cooling via the NAS, Scope, MIT, or some other scientific organization. Good luck finding one.
I trust the National Science Board will do?
"[edit] 1974 and 1972 National Science Board
The Washington Post reports that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated:[13]
During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.
This statement is correct (see Historical temperature record) although the Washington Post quotes it with disapproval. The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age. "
Games, set, match.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 05:20:17 AM
Games, set, match.
Why don't you paste the entire quote. More specifically the sentence right after the words you quoted.
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
Certainly not a prediction of gloom and doom. Just an exploration of possibilities. The tone back then was v different than it is now.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 05:28:45 AM
You didn't make the distinction between mercury poisoning and human vs. natural emissions. I'm not educated enough on mercury emissions to comment but mercury poisoning is a real problem.
Quote
They are not precise enough to use for climate modeling, for a variety of reasons.
Ice cores are accurate for temperature reading to 1/9th of a degree C. CO2 readings from the cores are accurate to less than 1 part per million.
Quote
Perhaps you are unaware that CO2 levels have been many times the present level in the past with no ill effects for life?
And exactly what time period are you talking about? Certainly not at a time when humans were around.
I could say a lot more but I have work to do.
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 05:39:35 AM
Games, set, match.
Why don't you paste the entire quote. More specifically the sentence right after the words you quoted.
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
Certainly not a prediction of gloom and doom. Just an exploration of possibilities. The tone back then was v different than it is now.
Yes. You might remember I already noted more scientific restraint. What you fail to acknowledge is that I have provided you with what you claim does not exist.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 05:42:29 AM
Yes. You might remember I already noted more scientific restraint. What you fail to acknowledge is that I have provided you with what you claim does not exist.
Only on a technicality. I should have used the word *imminent* like William Connolley does. The challenge still stands. The fact is the NAS, MIT, etc all said we where clueless.
then:
Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines it's course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate-neither in short-term variations nor in any in its larger long-term changes.-The National Academy of sciences 1974
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html
Even Steven Schneider, the leader of the "global cooling movement" said:
...we just don't know enough to chose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling--or when. -
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf
When even the leader of the 'conspiracy' says "we don't know" then I think you are very far off the mark by claiming the scientific community, as a whole, was wrong.
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 06:33:38 AM
richyoung,
You didn't make the distinction between mercury poisoning and human vs. natural emissions. I'm not educated enough on mercury emissions to comment but mercury poisoning is a real problem.
You didn't make the distinction between mercury poisoning and human vs. natural emissions. I'm not educated enough on mercury emissions to comment but mercury poisoning is a real problem.
Only if you are ODing on water pills - NOT from fish, and certainly NOT due to man.
Quote
Quote
They are not precise enough to use for climate modeling, for a variety of reasons.
Ice cores are accurate for temperature reading to 1/9th of a degree C. CO2 readings from the cores are accurate to less than 1 part per million.
Wrong0, me bucko. See the following:
The ice-core man
LAWRENCE SOLOMON
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 and the temperature rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.
Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the worlds most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.
But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. The IPCC relies on icecore data on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface, Dr. Jaworowski explains. These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.
Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.
This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C, Dr. Jaworowski explains, and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air.
Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.
According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time, Dr. Jaworowski sates. The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.
Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million. We also know that there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the icecore record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldnt the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age?
Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclearreactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.
This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout, he explained. This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be immoral if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institutes director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that this is not the way one gets research projects. Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute. Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowskis science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
Is there an alternative to ice-core samples, which are but proxies from which assumptions about the historical composition of the atmosphere can be made? Yes, there are several other proxies, and they lead to different findings about CO2, Dr. Jaworowski states. But we dont need to rely on proxies at all.
Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded todays levels.
The IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners. They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
Quote
Quote
Perhaps you are unaware that CO2 levels have been many times the present level in the past with no ill effects for life?
And exactly what time period are you talking about? Certainly not at a time when humans were around.
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 22, 2007, 06:51:37 AM
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 07:03:22 AM
Wrong0, me bucko. See the following:
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him. If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz.
In a nutshell he's comparing archaic chemical measuring devices to super high tech IR spec readings. That's like comparing a sundial (which is read by a legally blind man) to a nuclear clock and saying they have the same accuracy. No time for a more thorough response. I am actually writing an article on this guy right now. It will have lots of pretty pictures to make the science super easy to understand even for a young child. I'll be back in 8 hours. Until then I suggest you search lamberts blog for more info on this guy.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 22, 2007, 07:13:47 AM
Doesn't the historic temperature graph show dramatic parallel spiking when the CO2 shows spiking? Except there at the end near 1950 where the CO2 has already started a dramatic rise at 10K BC but the temp just kind of fluctuates right around 0?
Not a trick question - What has happened since 1950 temp wise? Because unlike the previous model spikes it appears we are on at least a 10K year lag on this one.
If our current situation, the only one with really accurate and widespread temp data to work with, isn't exactly matching past models, that would seem to cast doubt on the prior models or imply that there are additional variables in play now slowing the response time that weren't there in the past.
Going on the assumption all the modeling is good, how exactly can historical causation be proven even if both graphs are correct?
Philosophically, if indeed both numbers have swung dramatically over time, with change caused to environments and species in the past, why should I particularly care that they are changing once again. There's no "right" to stasis in life. No right to polar bears, or stable temperate zones where once were jungles and ice sheets. Life on this planet has adapted quite well through natural processes on this planet to previous radical shifts.
In the NYT magazine this Sunday was an article by a writer bemoaning that his children's children may not be able to enjoy the woodlands of NC where he grew up, that its "natural beauty" would be replaced by (unspoken but presumably "ugly") savannah.
Given that change occurs anyway, even if we are contributing to it this time, it remains a provincial and arrogant attitude, for both modern Westerners and the current crop of aboriginal peoples, that the exact world we happened to grow up in should remain the same for our convenience.
Post by: mountainclmbr on May 22, 2007, 07:35:57 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists, it makes me want more than their computer model results before I allow them to control my life.
Post by: Ron on May 22, 2007, 07:40:29 AM
Quote
When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists, it makes me want more than their computer model results before I allow them to control my life.
Very succinct.
I am skeptical of consensus science.
It seems to always be in favor of more government control as the solution to whatever problem they study.
Post by: richyoung on May 22, 2007, 09:11:22 AM
Wrong0, me bucko. See the following:
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him. If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz.
..ah yes - the standard 'He sucked his thumb abd believed in Santa Claus. On top of that he doesn't worship the false god Global Warming, so he MUST be wrong..." Such a clear display of circular logic. Here's a little basic physics for you:
Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing". In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice. IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample. Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old. Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:23:31 PM
Ice core samples show evidence of warming and cooling that go back 400,000 years or so from some of the Antarctic ice cores.
Try one million.
Quote
The current trend is in line with previous cycles. There are also ocean sediment cores that indicate the same cycles.
In the past million years CO2 has never gone past 280 ppm. We are heading for 550 ppm and will likely hit 750. And you say this is in line with previous cycles?
Quote
When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists
James Hansen is a socialist? Are you aware his favorite candidate of the last election was John McCain? How many socialists like John McCain?
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:36:46 PM
Wrong0, me bucko. See the following:
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....
That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?
Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him. If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz.
..ah yes - the standard 'He sucked his thumb abd believed in Santa Claus. On top of that he doesn't worship the false god Global Warming, so he MUST be wrong..." Such a clear display of circular logic.
I'm going to use pictures to help you understand. Jaworowski thinks that measurements with this device:
Are more accurate than this device:
Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer
That is like saying a sundial is more accurate than a nuclear clock. Even worse the glass tube you see in the first picture is highly likely to take samples of not only your armpit but your breath. A sundial doesn't suffer from these problems. So to make the comparison even more accurate you would have to pair up a legally blind (thick glasses) man reading a sundial vs. a nuclear clock. You really couldn't design a worse system.
Current air sampling techniques using tall towers like this one:
That are placed in the middle of the ocean to avoid any and all contamination from nearby factories or smelly armpits. Many of the readings Jaworowski references were taken in the middle of Paris or Hamburg. The air there is so dirty he might as well have shoved the measuring device up a cows rear end. Now, if you can't understand how Jaworowski went seriously wrong then we have a real problem. So I will ask you straight up to see what your intentions are. Do you think Jaworowski is correct when he says that readings taken with the top device (glass tube) is more accurate than the bottom device?
Quote
Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing". In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice. IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample. Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old. Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 02:58:17 PM
Philosophically, if indeed both numbers have swung dramatically over time, with change caused to environments and species in the past, why should I particularly care that they are changing once again[?]
Cuz a 5 degree swing in the negative means the US is covered in a mile high glacier. A 5 degree swing in the opposite direction means an entirely different set of problems. The swings are caused by something called DO events. DO events are understood and they have stopped. Explaining why they have stopped is complicated and difficult to explain without using video. There are plenty of writups at realclimate.org on this topic. Your question is a good one it just requires more than a few paragraphs to explain. I might do a writeup on this but as of right now I'm tired from a long day at work.
Post by: wacki on May 22, 2007, 03:04:25 PM
Richyoung insists it's the sun:
Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:
One is the sun, one is the temp. Lots more reading here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.
Post by: mountainclmbr on May 22, 2007, 05:43:58 PM
There is a similar coincidence of 62 million year mass extinctions on Earth. These mass extinctions coincide with the cycle of the Earth's path in the spiral bands of our galaxy, the Milky Way. The Earth not only rotates in the spiral bands, but has a 62 million year cycle from side to side in the spiral band. The Milky Way is travelling in space in a flat manner, not edge-on. The Earth's mass extinctions coincide with the timing of the Earth being on the face of the spiral band that would be impacting debris head-on such as gas molecules. This could, if the hypothesis is correct, cause intense ice ages. The extinction of the dinosaurs is still believed to be the result of an asteriod collision.
Post by: wacki on May 23, 2007, 04:23:46 AM
The solar cause is hypothesized to be due to variations in solar wind, not variations in irradiance. The solar wind is thought to prevent high-energy cosmic particles from impacting the upper atmosphere and creating charged gas molecules that enhance ice particle formation. The theory is that a high-level layer of ice particles form a cloud that reflects sunlight and causees cooling. Active sunspot activity causes greater solar wind and less sunlight is reflected.
Different theory, same graph....
Nothing changes. There is a cosmic ray graph on the logicalscience page too. If you give me the name of the researcher (even better the actual paper) that's making this argument I can better address this issue. In fact, please do post a name.
Post by: richyoung on May 23, 2007, 06:17:18 AM
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee. And tube or cool nuclear thing, NEITHER of them is going to detect CO2 that is NO LONGER THERE - which is the point that you failed to grasp.
Post by: richyoung on May 23, 2007, 06:25:41 AM
Trying to keep everything in one thread:
Richyoung insists it's the sun:
Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:
One is the sun, one is the temp. Lots more reading here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.
Richyoung insists it's the sun:
Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:
One is the sun, one is the temp. Lots more reading here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.
Asnoted in the other thread, if you go back further on your graph than 78, its a WHOLE NUTHER STORY.....
Post by: mountainclmbr on May 23, 2007, 07:08:31 AM
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
The links under the graphs contain references to peer reviewed articles. Note that Mann's famous hockey stick graph does not show the Midevil Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. I am not arguing that climate cannot change. The glacial periods and interglacial periods show that the climate can change without human causes. Finding alternate sources of energy is something I think we should be worried about, but that does not require socialism as a cure.
The things that make me skeptical:
When the socialists declare the debate is over.
When the socialists declare that there is concensus.
I am skeptical of anything Al Gore says.
I am skeptical of anything the corrupt UN says.
Things that make me go
When the left claims that questioning them and their motives is political, put if they are peddling socialism it is not political.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 23, 2007, 09:51:19 AM
not exact but the trends follow if you look at the different scale to the years
1990 solar starts down so does temp 95 or so they both start up. was it meant as capitulation?
Post by: Iain on May 23, 2007, 12:22:27 PM
Google searching for points against climate change requires actually ignoring large amounts of rebuttals or contrary established scientific sources. Huge amounts. To reject climate change actually requires rejecting huge amounts of scientific literature. I'd posit that if anyone on this board were to actually really understand this literature, fully and completely, to be a climatological expert - they'd have 'won' this debate already. Whether you are right or wrong, if you are actually a full-on expert it's easy to blind with science. Start throwing terms like albedo out there and it's not long before most have to use a dictionary to even know what is being said.
Instead what we have is assertions and in some cases mockery. People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock (I'm not just referring to this thread). Others seem convinced that one or two paragraphs is the end of the matter. Others think that they can continue to cite stuff from a very limited number of sources because they are the only valid authority based on something - well what exactly?.
None of that really works. If you look back through this discussion I've tried to take that position - I want to know just who you are to hold the opinions that you do.
And before you fly off the handle about that question think about the guy who turns up on THR to lecture about the combat ineffectiveness of round X (and perhaps the superiority of round Y) and yet hasn't seen the inside of a military camp nor seems to know the slightest thing about ballistics. Furthermore he continues to cite the same few people who agree with him regardless of their actual authority.
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank. Especially if you think this is some giant conspiracy as many seem to do.
Again, the sceptical position is to hold your hands up and say 'I don't know'. Because I don't know, there are plenty of things I accept that I don't really know much about, same for pretty much everyone alive. And the sceptic does not claim to know the answer when the answer is not absolutely abundantly clear. Nor does he mock or attempt to belittle. He tries to understand and does not pick sides when he lacks the expertise, he especially does not adopt fringe positions without serious justification.
Here endeth the sermon.
Post by: wacki on May 23, 2007, 01:59:10 PM
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee.
Almost nobody has better credentials than Fredrick Seitz. He was the president of the NAS for crying out loud. It doesn't get much better than that. Yet he claims HIV doesn't cause aids, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, he was abducted by aliens, etc. In 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."
I've learned a long time ago that with millions of scientists, countless mental diseases, old age, political ideology, and tens of millions of industry bribe money (especially in climate change) that calls to authority mean little or nothing. Seitz is the perfect example.
Quote
And tube or cool nuclear thing, NEITHER of them is going to detect CO2 that is NO LONGER THERE - which is the point that you failed to grasp.
Well, sometime within the next 48 hours I hope to post a link that will hopefully make this argument (and Jaworowski) seem silly. If you really believe your argument then you should supply empirical evidence that supports your claims. (note: this isn't the first time I've asked for evidence from you... and failed to receive said evidence) Otherwise you are just pontificating.
Post by: wacki on May 23, 2007, 02:04:03 PM
actually if you lok at wacki's graph there is a correlation
not exact but the trends follow if you look at the different scale to the years
1990 solar starts down so does temp 95 or so they both start up. was it meant as capitulation?
not exact but the trends follow if you look at the different scale to the years
1990 solar starts down so does temp 95 or so they both start up. was it meant as capitulation?
Solar irradiance is the same in 1986, 1996 and 2006. Yet temperature wise each subsequent year is hotter than the next. And you think that is a capitulation?
Solar irradiance on the graph is lowest in 2006 yet that happens to be the hottest year on that graph. And you think this is capitulating?
I must say I am truly baffled.
Post by: wacki on May 23, 2007, 02:08:09 PM
Asnoted in the other thread, if you go back further on your graph than 78, its a WHOLE NUTHER STORY.....
The graph I showed is the entire record from the PMOD (Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium) database. The source is linked to on logicalscience. A link to the Max Plank reconstructions (not direct measurements) is also linked to on the webpage I posted. I'll be happy to discuss those later. Whatever you are trying to get at, I fail to see your point. Late for a shooting session with friends....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 23, 2007, 04:38:52 PM
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 06:03:06 AM
Here's the thing that strikes me as utterly bizarre. Almost any other subject I can think of, if someone is proclaiming their superior knowledge when it runs against that which is received and understood (i.e established authorities), without any basis or relevant expertise they are cranks. Yet on climate change, every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert as long as he has one or two 'experts' he can cite.
I do modeling and simulations for a living. The entire basis for "Global Warming" are climate... models and simulations. Models and simulations that * DON'T * model water vapor accurately, (and since that is over 90% of the greenhouse effect on earth, thats a problem....), * DON'T * model phytoplankton behavior except as a gross simplification, (and since thats the largest biomass on Earth, and the biggest converter of CO2 into oxygen, and one of the 7 major carbon sinks in Earth's carbon economy, that's a problem....), when run backwards * DON'T * match the historical record... well, lets just put it this way - when MY simulations show trucks killing tanks with .50 calibur fire, I don;t go running to Washinton telling them we need to replace our M1 Abrahms tanks with trucks with .50 calibure guns.... I go to work helping find out what's screwed up in the database. Garbage in, garbage out - and Global Warming is garbage.
Quote
Google searching for points against climate change requires actually ignoring large amounts of rebuttals or contrary established scientific sources. Huge amounts. To reject climate change actually requires rejecting huge amounts of scientific literature.
No body rejects climate change. Climate is constantly changing - has since before Man occupied this dirtball, will long after he is gone. There is LEGITIMATE disagreement as to the DEGREE of the change, the HARMFULNESS of the change, and the extent, if any, that man's activities are causing the change. BTW, science isn't democracry - its no tthe number of people that agree with you that matters - its the consistant repeatability of testable hypothesis that matter. THAT is the exact opposite of the "it's settled science, anyone who disagrees should be thrown out" attitude that the true believers are displaying. In science - NOTHING is ever "settled", and EVERYTHING is to be tested and questioned. In high school, they didn't just TELL us the acceleration of gravity, they MADE US VERIFY IT experimentally.
Quote
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank. Especially if you think this is some giant conspiracy as many seem to do.
When you want ME to compromise my nation's (and mine as well) economy and standard of living, you darn well better come up with major, uncontestable, so-simple-even-a-child-can-understand, irrefutable PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not. The ONLY semi-accurate way to take the Earth's temperature as a WHOLE is via satellite IR observations - 25 years of data is NOT ENOUGH to trend a phenomenon like climate.
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 06:14:24 AM
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee.
Almost nobody has better credentials than Fredrick Seitz. He was the president of the NAS for crying out loud. It doesn't get much better than that. Yet he claims HIV doesn't cause aids, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, he was abducted by aliens, etc. In 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."
I'm not quoting Seitz. Relevance to thsi discussion?
Quote
I've learned a long time ago that with millions of scientists, countless mental diseases, old age, political ideology, and tens of millions of industry bribe money (especially in climate change) that calls to authority mean little or nothing.
...and yet that is EXACTLY what YOU do - over and over - except on YOUR side, its "government and international organization" "bribe money". If I ran a company that was under seige by this Global Warming nonsense, you bet your tailbone I would be paying for research into the truth of the subject - of course, to you, that's "bribe money"...
Quote
Well, sometime within the next 48 hours I hope to post a link that will hopefully make this argument (and Jaworowski) seem silly.
Bring it.
Quote
If you really believe your argument then you should supply empirical evidence that supports your claims. (note: this isn't the first time I've asked for evidence from you... and failed to receive said evidence)
Jaws has the evidence - all you do over and over is attack any cited authority or source (*and on a personal, ugly level, mind you) that doesn't happen to toe your party line, and frankly, its old.
]
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 06:20:46 AM
Quote
The pattern of temperature climate change recorded in the Vostok ice core supports the orbital theory of ice ages, in which the timing of glaciation cycles is attributed to the periodicity of changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity), the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity) and the timing of its closest approach to the Sun (precession). The astronomical effect is evident in the Vostok record, with a strong eccentric signal, noted Lorius. "The amount of energy coming to the Earth doesn't change much but the [latitudinal] distribution of the energy does, and this can affect the building or decay of northern hemisphere polar ice sheets. A decrease in solar input at high latitudes, for example, can lead to building ice sheets. This, in turn, reinforces the orbital effect, as more radiation is reflected away."
from http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html
...so much for THAT so-called GW proof....
Post by: Iain on May 24, 2007, 06:38:05 AM
PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not.
And that's what the crux of this disagreement comes down to. Your expertise is what? Your justification for your opinions (when they run contrary to understood and received science) is what?
Saying 'Lindzen agrees with me' is not good enough. Lindzen might be absolutely right and thus you might be absolutely right - but you have given no justification as to why you (and thus Lindzen et al) should be believed and the (massive preponderance, and that's not controversial) of contrary evidence dismissed.
The Russell quote had a big impact on my online postings, but so did this:
Quote
People who know nothing about a topic, especially a very technical one that requires specific training, knowledge, and experience, are not due an opinion about that topic and are better served by being quiet when it is asked about or discussed. For example, when brain surgery, or string theory, or the NFL draft, or women's dress sizes, or white wine is being discussed, I remain quiet... But seldom is this the case when orthopedic surgeons, athletic trainers, physical therapists, or nurses are asked about full squats.
Mark Rippetoe.The matter isn't closed, but he is saying that even if you have some apparently relevant expertise you're still not in any position to go beyond the bounds of your expertise or express strong opinions beyond your own ability to back them up. I'd probably not have phrased it quite like that, discuss is one thing, strong opinions are quite another.
The Rippetoe quote, or this position, would not be a controversial one on almost other subject (like brain surgery, or string theory) Just global warming. And that's what really fascinates me.
Post by: mountainclmbr on May 24, 2007, 06:51:59 AM
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 07:19:45 AM
PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not.
And that's what the crux of this disagreement comes down to. Your expertise is what?
1. 10+ years installing, maintaining, modifying and running models and simulations - which, after all, are what Anthropgenic Global Warming is supposedly "proved" by.
2. A high school/colege level understanding of science and the scientific method.
3. 45+ years of life, which have profoundly refined my "B.S." detector...
4. Exposure to 45+ years of junk science, Malthusism, the disaster lobby, and other assorted feats of doom-and-gloom Chicken Littlism.
Quote
Your justification for your opinions (when they run contrary to understood and received science) is what?
NONE of AGW is "understood and received" - even if it were, THATS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! But since YOU assert it is, let me reference a few scientists that think it isn't:
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the prophets of doom of global warming of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" Glaciers chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious, Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming. He said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and red flags, and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures. Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed, he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming", he said. Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant, Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I can list a lot morescientists...its not just Lindzen. Its not just me saying it:
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic.Patterson says his conversion probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go. Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,
(Maybe I'm wrong - perhaps the science is "understood and received" - just not the way YOU think it is...)
Quote
Saying 'Lindzen agrees with me' is not good enough. Lindzen might be absolutely right and thus you might be absolutely right - but you have given no justification as to why you (and thus Lindzen et al) should be believed and the (massive preponderance, and that's not controversial) of contrary evidence dismissed.
Lindsen litterally WROTE THE BOOK on satellite IR measurements - thats WHY he should be believed. If Boing Aircraft sez "Don't exceed mach 0.95 in a 747-300", you might ought to believe the guys that BUILT it. Plus to assert that the evidence to the contrary is a "massive perponderance" and not "controversial' is a lie. How many AGW SKEPTICS have converted into BELIEVERS (scientists, mathmeticians and the like, those that can really understand the evidence) in the last 5 years, verses how many BELIEVERS are now SKEPTICS. The trend is NOT going in YOUR direction.
Quote
The matter isn't closed, but he is saying that even if you have some apparently relevant expertise you're still not in any position to go beyond the bounds of your expertise or express strong opinions beyond your own ability to back them up. I'd probably not have phrased it quite like that, discuss is one thing, strong opinions are quite another.
Horespucky is horsepucky is horsepucky. You can't polish a turd, and you don't need more than a basic college level understanding of math, physics, and statistics to see AGW for the pile of rubbish it is.
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 07:25:10 AM
I've learned a long time ago that with millions of scientists, countless mental diseases, old age, political ideology, and tens of millions of industry bribe money (especially in climate change) that calls to authority mean little or nothing. Seitz is the perfect example.
You mean like this industry stooge:
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that cant be fixed. The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything, Bellamy added. Bellamys conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamys long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britains peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.
...wonder how much industrial bribe money it took for him to destroy his career, dissolve almost all of his life-long associations, and cause him apparently to abandon his life's work....
Quote
Well, sometime within the next 48 hours I hope to post a link that will hopefully make this argument (and Jaworowski) seem silly.
Was Jaworoski ALWAYS "silly", even back when he BELIEVED in anthropogenic climate change? Or did he only become "silly" when he changed his position and stopped agreeing with you?
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 08:25:18 AM
Trying to keep everything in one thread:
Richyoung insists it's the sun:
If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.
Richyoung insists it's the sun:
If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.
Lets see:
1. Jupiter is developing a second Red Spot - a giant hurricane believed to be caused by Jovian ... Global Warming. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
2. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
3. Pluto has warmed 3 degrees Celsius in recent years - from -233 to -230 degrees.
4. Mar's icecaps are melting.
5. Almost forgot - the Earth is getting (slightly) warmer.
...now, according to Iain, since I'm just a plain ol' Unix system administrator specializing in modeling and simulations, with a previous career supporting U.S. Army development and research, I am in *NO WAY * qualified to have an opinion or question the "settled science" of my intellectual superiors, but please indulge me, I humbly beseach:
Those "other" planets (i.e., "not Earth") are NOT getting warmer because I drive an SUV or get my electricity from a coal-fired plant - those things aren't ON the other planets that show signs of warming. So we have one of two possibilities:
1. The other planets are warming for some unknown reason, and Earth is NOT warming for that unknown reason, but rather due to mankind's generation of a minor greenhouse gas, CO2. (This position is consistent with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming).
2. The Earth and the other planets in the solar system are getting warmer for the same reason. This is the AGW Skeptic position, and also the one that Occam's Razor would predict to be more likely to be true.
What do the warming Solar System bodies have in common? NOT man, but rather the big ball of fusion in the sky. What do scientists say about the possibility that solar radiation is responsible?
Quote
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
Post by: Iain on May 24, 2007, 08:48:53 AM
Horespucky is horsepucky is horsepucky. You can't polish a turd, and you don't need more than a basic college level understanding of math, physics, and statistics to see AGW for the pile of rubbish it is.
When wacki says something similar he/she means that someone with that level of education can understand the science, not dismiss one side in their entirety on the basis of that level of education.
As many do, on 'both sides' you continue to appeal to authority. The opinions of these authorities are interesting and they are entirely possibly correct. They in fact may be correct, but despite claims to expertise the lay person should evaluate where these authorities fall in their own fields. To claim that your authorities are anything more than a minority in their field is incorrect. You do not know that they are correct, to assert they are correct in the face of other authorities that disagree, and to claim false expertise is to risk the label of crank. No-one called them your 'superiors', but they don't go around telling you your job.
Appeals to authority are common in this debate, because we should be reliant on authorities. What we should not be is very highly selective of the authorities that we chose to rely upon. This link (note, not an authority but bound to be scrupulously up to date considering the voracity of internet debate) lists all the scientists with a broadly defined relevant expertise who have publicly opposed the IPCC assessment. There are not very many, and you have cited most of them - you rely on their expertise over all others. You have not, and I suspect will not, accept contrary opinions and that cannot be on the basis of your expertise or genuine understanding.
To ignore the contrary opinion, the vast amounts of scientific analysis and peer-reviewed and signatories to the IPCC reports based on your own expertise, your reliance on chosen authorities and dismissal of the IPCC based on your perceptions of them as biased is not a sustainable position for a non-expert.
In matters like this you can be right for the right reasons (expertise), right for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be right), wrong for the right reasons (contrary expertise) and wrong for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be wrong). Only time will tell if you are right or wrong on the matter at stake, but either way it will be for the wrong reasons. Because that would also be true of any strong opinion I held, I'll not take the risk.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 24, 2007, 08:55:02 AM
Quote
To ignore the contrary opinion, the vast amounts of scientific analysis and peer-reviewed and signatories to the IPCC reports based on your own expertise, your reliance on chosen authorities and dismissal of the IPCC based on your perceptions of them as biased is not a sustainable position for a non-expert.
In matters like this you can be right for the right reasons (expertise), right for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be right), wrong for the right reasons (contrary expertise) and wrong for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be wrong). Only time will tell if you are right or wrong on the matter at stake, but either way it will be for the wrong reasons. Because that would also be true of any strong opinion I held, I'll not take the risk.
In matters like this you can be right for the right reasons (expertise), right for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be right), wrong for the right reasons (contrary expertise) and wrong for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be wrong). Only time will tell if you are right or wrong on the matter at stake, but either way it will be for the wrong reasons. Because that would also be true of any strong opinion I held, I'll not take the risk.
He listed several other reasons other than "appeal to authority".
Basic logic being one. Prior experience with similar extremity of claims by some of the same types of authorities being another.
Like it or not, this controversy is not taking place in some "pure science" vacuum. There is palpably and demonstrably money, reputation and economic and political power on the line. That means "authorities" can be assessed based on far more than their professional qualifications and abstract opinions but also on what statements they make not directly related to their field and the larger consequences of said statements.
Post by: richyoung on May 24, 2007, 09:22:37 AM
Horespucky is horsepucky is horsepucky. You can't polish a turd, and you don't need more than a basic college level understanding of math, physics, and statistics to see AGW for the pile of rubbish it is.
When wacki says something similar he/she means that someone with that level of education can understand the science, not dismiss one side in their entirety on the basis of that level of education.
As many do, on 'both sides' you continue to appeal to authority. The opinions of these authorities are interesting and they are entirely possibly correct. They in fact may be correct, but despite claims to expertise the lay person should evaluate where these authorities fall in their own fields. To claim that your authorities are anything more than a minority in their field is incorrect.
Which way is the trend? How many notable, famous AGW proponents are NOW skeptics?
Quote
You do not know that they are correct, to assert they are correct in the face of other authorities that disagree, and to claim false expertise is to risk the label of crank.
The authorities * I * cite are in concurence with MY OWN determination after looking at the evidence, and the AGW proponents sketchy history of accuracy. I cite them for TWO reasons:
1. Because you, and Wacki, repeatedly and falsely claim there is no signifigant disagreement in the scientific community with the AGW theory. OK - how much dissent must there be before that dissent is "signifigant"? I submit that with recent converts, that threshold has been passed.
2. To show that scientists and authorities with more direct experience in the fields involved have reached the SAME CONCLUSIONS as me, redcucing the likelyhood that I am some kind of "crank".
Quote
No-one called them your 'superiors', but they don't go around telling you your job.
NO. they don't do that. YOU go around telling people they shouldn't have a sttrong opinion on an issue of scientific doubt that potentialy will drastically re-order their lives, whether it is true and acted upon or otherwise. Sorry, democracy doesn;t work that way.
Quote
Appeals to authority are common in this debate, because we should be reliant on authorities. What we should not be is very highly selective of the authorities that we chose to rely upon
. I have not denied or diminished the undeniable fact that there are many scientists etc. that disagree with what I have determined about AGW - as noted above, 'tis you and wacki that do that.
Quote
This link (note, not an authority but bound to be scrupulously up to date considering the voracity of internet debate) lists all the scientists with a broadly defined relevant expertise who have publicly opposed the IPCC assessment. There are not very many, and you have cited most of them - you rely on their expertise over all others. You have not, and I suspect will not, accept contrary opinions and that cannot be on the basis of your expertise or genuine understanding.
Nor is it. I understand what a monumental task it is to "take the temperature of the Earth", and I understand what a short slice of time we have data that can even arguably approximate such to the degree sensative enough to pick up any signal of climate change. I also understand that the ocean is huge, complex, and just know responding to changes that occured hundreds and thousands of years ago. Primarily, these means that EVEN IF AGW as a theory was "true", there is NOT SUFFICIENT DATA yet in evidence to PROVE it, much less determine what % of warming is the effect of man. Extraordinary claims on scanty evidence are not smart things to base policy on.
Quote
To ignore the contrary opinion, the vast amounts of scientific analysis and peer-reviewed and signatories to the IPCC reports based on your own expertise, your reliance on chosen authorities and dismissal of the IPCC based on your perceptions of them as biased is not a sustainable position for a non-expert.
Wrong is wrong - it doesn't matter how many people agree that the moon is made of green cheese - it isn't.
Quote
In matters like this you can be right for the right reasons (expertise), right for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be right), wrong for the right reasons (contrary expertise) and wrong for the wrong reasons (deferral to authorities who happen to be wrong). Only time will tell if you are right or wrong on the matter at stake, but either way it will be for the wrong reasons. Because that would also be true of any strong opinion I held, I'll not take the risk.
...or I could be right because logic, experience, and Occam's Razor all indicate I'm right, dispite your thinly vieled smarmy evaluation to the contrary.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 24, 2007, 02:41:13 PM
Post by: wacki on May 24, 2007, 03:29:30 PM
Question #1:
Which way is the trend? How many notable, famous AGW proponents are NOW skeptics?
..... I submit that with recent converts, that threshold has been passed.
..... I submit that with recent converts, that threshold has been passed.
Like Jaworowski? Just because inhofe & morano (who you have been quoting)
http://tinyurl.com/yohf45
and apparently Jaworowski himself say he's a recent convert doesn't make it so. If you did a simple google search you will find out that he had been debating the ice core record in 1992, claimed an ice age was coming four years ago in 2003, and called global warming a foly in 1999. Here is a paper he wrote in 1997 titled:
ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Is 10 years really a recent convert? His lies are so obvious yet you insist that he's credible. So I will ask you, do you honestly think he's a "recent" convert?
Question #2:
Quote
1. Because you, and Wacki, repeatedly and falsely claim there is no signifigant disagreement in the scientific community with the AGW theory. OK - how much dissent must there be before that dissent is "signifigant"?
I'd say 10% would be significant. But I will make it easy on you. You say you can find a lot more climate change skeptics. Well there are 15,000 practicing climatologists that are members of the AGU. I challenge you to prove 2% of those are skeptics. Or if you want a handicap I'll let you include all AGU climatologists at a number of 20,000. (not very many europeans are members of the AGU) If you are able to come up with 400 names of AGU members w/ relevant Ph.D's you will get an op-ed in the WSJ and you will surely be able to get $10,000 out of Exxon:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
So, do you think you have what it takes to win that 10K prize?
Heck, 1% at 150 scientists (american) or 200 (handicapped European) would almost certainly get you that 10K. Please keep in mind that Naomi Oreskes wasn't able to find a single peer reviewed journal that disagreed with the consensus from 1993-2003. Benny Peiser who claimed fraud eventually admitted, after two years, that only one of his papers was anti-consensus and that wasn't even peer reviewed. So I wish you the best of luck!
Question #3:
I posted a question here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115747#msg115747
That was independent of ice cores. Would you consider Jaworowski credible if he claimed the ancient glass tube
was more accurate than the Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer?
Please answer this simple question.
Post by: Iain on May 25, 2007, 12:20:57 AM
He listed several other reasons other than "appeal to authority".
Basic logic being one. Prior experience with similar extremity of claims by some of the same types of authorities being another.
Basic logic would never be accepted as a claim to knowledge in other technical fields. If this thread was about brain surgery it would have lasted about three posts because few would regard any experience other than brain surgery as valid, even tangentially related fields of expertise such as orthopedic surgery.Basic logic being one. Prior experience with similar extremity of claims by some of the same types of authorities being another.
Despite the repeated insistence and misrepresentation there have been few extreme previous claims. I know there is a strong 'anti-environmentalist' movement, it accuses Carson of being responsible for more deaths than Hitler so I have little time for it. We should have clearly established the global cooling fallacy - even when it was predicted by scientific sources they clearly stated that they thought we might be coming to the end of an interglacial period, thus it would take several thousand years for ice sheets to descend, and even then, despite selective quoting, we see that understanding of the man's potential role was there and was a potential cause for concern. There was no imminent disaster predicted by scientists and accepted by the community at all.
Right now I'm working on incorporating a charity. It involves legal matters and needs an understanding of those aspects of the law. I'm not about to express strong opinions on divorce law based on that experience. I have a friend who knows a good deal about divorce law, he is a solicitor, but if he expresses strong and unusual opinions about divorce law I do not adopt them as my own, even if I reached those same conclusions 'on my own.' I'm not a divorce lawyer, my expertise is not valid enough to hold strong opinions. If I have an interest in divorce law there should be no bar to my discussion of it I agree, my tone and claims should reflect my expertise however. This would not be controversial if we were talking about divorce law, relativity or neurosurgery.
So cassandrasdaddy, I've clearly stated that I don't adopt views on global warming any more, other than to say that with the state of climatological opinion as it clearly is, to adopt views that reject the mainstream opinion based on no valid expertise is not a sustainable position for a non-expert. I'm not an expert, nor am I educated beyond an interest in this field, I don't argue science specifics unless really outlandish claims are made. Your anecdote is interesting, but take a trip over to realclimate, there are plenty of climatologists there who don't agree with your acquaintances or kin, thus you have made a choice about your authorities and if it were me, I'd need to justify that to myself.
wacki - I appreciate I've veered this away from science, but I'm trying to get to what I think is the heart of heated public debate on almost any technical scientific matter.
Post by: richyoung on May 25, 2007, 04:55:09 AM
This thread is degrading into a directionless mess so I will try to pin it down. Richyoung, please answer these questions:
Question #1:
Like Jaworowski? Just because inhofe & morano (who you have been quoting)
http://tinyurl.com/yohf45
and apparently Jaworowski himself say he's a recent convert doesn't make it so. If you did a simple google search you will find out that he had been debating the ice core record in 1992, claimed an ice age was coming four years ago in 2003, and called global warming a foly in 1999. Here is a paper he wrote in 1997 titled:
ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Is 10 years really a recent convert? His lies are so obvious yet you insist that he's credible. So I will ask you, do you honestly think he's a "recent" convert?
Question #1:
Which way is the trend? How many notable, famous AGW proponents are NOW skeptics?
..... I submit that with recent converts, that threshold has been passed.
..... I submit that with recent converts, that threshold has been passed.
Like Jaworowski? Just because inhofe & morano (who you have been quoting)
http://tinyurl.com/yohf45
and apparently Jaworowski himself say he's a recent convert doesn't make it so. If you did a simple google search you will find out that he had been debating the ice core record in 1992, claimed an ice age was coming four years ago in 2003, and called global warming a foly in 1999. Here is a paper he wrote in 1997 titled:
ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Is 10 years really a recent convert? His lies are so obvious yet you insist that he's credible. So I will ask you, do you honestly think he's a "recent" convert?
I did not label "Jaws" a recent convert - I asked YOU if he was "silly" back when he BELIEVED in anthropogenic climate change - which was back in the 1970's, when he thought mankind's generation of dust and particulates would trigger a new Ice Age. YOU still haven't answered that one...
Quote
Question #2:
I'd say 10% would be significant. But I will make it easy on you. You say you can find a lot more climate change skeptics. Well there are 15,000 practicing climatologists that are members of the AGU. I challenge you to prove 2% of those are skeptics. Or if you want a handicap I'll let you include all AGU climatologists at a number of 20,000. (not very many europeans are members of the AGU) If you are able to come up with 400 names of AGU members w/ relevant Ph.D's you will get an op-ed in the WSJ and you will surely be able to get $10,000 out of Exxon:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
So, do you think you have what it takes to win that 10K prize?
Heck, 1% at 150 scientists (american) or 200 (handicapped European) would almost certainly get you that 10K. Please keep in mind that Naomi Oreskes wasn't able to find a single peer reviewed journal that disagreed with the consensus from 1993-2003. Benny Peiser who claimed fraud eventually admitted, after two years, that only one of his papers was anti-consensus and that wasn't even peer reviewed. So I wish you the best of luck!
Quote
1. Because you, and Wacki, repeatedly and falsely claim there is no signifigant disagreement in the scientific community with the AGW theory. OK - how much dissent must there be before that dissent is "signifigant"?
I'd say 10% would be significant. But I will make it easy on you. You say you can find a lot more climate change skeptics. Well there are 15,000 practicing climatologists that are members of the AGU. I challenge you to prove 2% of those are skeptics. Or if you want a handicap I'll let you include all AGU climatologists at a number of 20,000. (not very many europeans are members of the AGU) If you are able to come up with 400 names of AGU members w/ relevant Ph.D's you will get an op-ed in the WSJ and you will surely be able to get $10,000 out of Exxon:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
So, do you think you have what it takes to win that 10K prize?
Heck, 1% at 150 scientists (american) or 200 (handicapped European) would almost certainly get you that 10K. Please keep in mind that Naomi Oreskes wasn't able to find a single peer reviewed journal that disagreed with the consensus from 1993-2003. Benny Peiser who claimed fraud eventually admitted, after two years, that only one of his papers was anti-consensus and that wasn't even peer reviewed. So I wish you the best of luck!
Not my job man. Nor would you be convinced if I did. You are a true believer.
I pose you a counter-challenge - find me a recent convert from skeptic to believer on this issue with a scientific background - as you should know, as more and more evidence comes in , more and more scientists recant. THE TREND IS NOT IN YOUR DIRECTION. And you still haven't answered why the other planets in the Solar System are heating up.
Quote
Question #3:
I posted a question here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115747#msg115747
That was independent of ice cores. Would you consider Jaworowski credible if he claimed the ancient glass tube
was more accurate than the Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer?
Please answer this simple question.
I posted a question here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115747#msg115747
That was independent of ice cores. Would you consider Jaworowski credible if he claimed the ancient glass tube
was more accurate than the Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer?
Please answer this simple question.
Depends on what you are using them for, what you are using them on. I can certainly envision circumstances where the more sophisticated equipment can be spoofed or fooled. I'm going to fall back on Iain's position, and say since Jaws (and, coincidentally, not you or me) is the climatologist, that's HIS call.
NOW - how about YOU answer a few questions:
1. Why are other planets and orbital bodies in the Solar System getting warmer as well?
2. Those ice cores you are always discussing - they show CO2 LAGS behind increasing temp - by as much as 1000 years. What does that say about CO2 as a global warming cause?
3. Even GW believers admit that water vapor is by far the most signifigant green house gas. What percentage of Earth' s warming do you assign to water vapor? Does that include cloud reflectivity? BTW, values as high as 85% have been advanced by the scientific community.
4. What percentage of Earth's green house effect do YOU believe is due to CO2?
5. ONLY three data streams for attempting to approximate Earth's over-all temperature exist: ground observations, balloon measurements, and satellite IR observation. Of the three, only ONE, ground measurements, agrees closely with the numbers that AGW should be genereating. It is also the most problematical. Why do you believe it, over the generally-accepted as more accurate balloon and satellite data, which, BTW, agree pretty closely with each other?
6. Where, in Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph, is the Midieval Warm Period? Why isn't it there? Would you accept such sloppy science (or deliberatet deception) from an AGW skeptic?
7. According to AGW, the atmosphere should be getting warmer at levels that it isn;t. How come?
Post by: wacki on May 25, 2007, 07:17:03 AM
I did not label "Jaws" a recent convert
My bad, it was Ron. Still doesn't change much.
Quote
- I asked YOU if he was "silly" back when he BELIEVED in anthropogenic climate change - which was back in the 1970's, when he thought mankind's generation of dust and particulates would trigger a new Ice Age. YOU still haven't answered that one...
Aerosols and particulates are a negative feedback that block out sunlight. So yes, they can cause cooling. How much light could be blocked was unknown in the 70s as there were no studies on aerosols back then. The assessment report by the NAS of sciences in 1974 was dead on the money. As for Jaworowski, he has always made outlandish claims. He claimed an ice age was coming four years ago. Back in 1994 he wrote a paper called: "The Posthumous Papers of Leaded Gasoline." And the oil companies, and strangely enough the tobacco companies, have certainly been fighting the concept of global warming before then. It would be interesting to see what happens if the courts force Exxon and the API to open their books like they did with tobacco.
Quote
Quote
Question #2:
... I challenge you to prove 2% of those are skeptics. Or if you want a handicap I'll let you include all AGU climatologists at a number of 20,000. (not very many europeans are members of the AGU) ...
Heck, 1% at 150 scientists (american) or 200 (handicapped European) would almost certainly get you that 10K. ....
Quote
1. Because you, and Wacki, repeatedly and falsely claim there is no signifigant disagreement in the scientific community with the AGW theory. OK - how much dissent must there be before that dissent is "signifigant"?
... I challenge you to prove 2% of those are skeptics. Or if you want a handicap I'll let you include all AGU climatologists at a number of 20,000. (not very many europeans are members of the AGU) ...
Heck, 1% at 150 scientists (american) or 200 (handicapped European) would almost certainly get you that 10K. ....
Not my job man.
If you can't backup your statements with proof then I suggest you don't make them at all.
Quote
I pose you a counter-challenge - find me a recent convert from skeptic to believer on this issue with a scientific background - as you should know, as more and more evidence comes in , more and more scientists recant.
According to Oreskes there wasn't a single consensus doubting paper from 1993-2003. If something was obvious to just about everyone in 1993 it's going to be hard for me to find a convert.
Quote
THE TREND IS NOT IN YOUR DIRECTION.
Can I ask for proof? Or is that not your job either?
Quote
And you still haven't answered why the other planets in the Solar System are heating up.
Yes I did. And so did Ian. We used different sources too. Search for the keyword "mars"
Quote
Depends on what you are using them for, what you are using them on. I can certainly envision circumstances where the more sophisticated equipment can be spoofed or fooled.
The black dots are the glass tube readings that "Jaws" endorses. The red line is the Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer. The Ultramat takes readings which are accurate to less than 1ppm. The glass tube device can claim the CO2 content of the atmosphere can double not only from year to year but within 5 minutes. (do I really need to explain the insane quantity of CO2 it takes to do that?) Which readings do you think are more accurate? These are the exact readings that "Jaws" debates.
BTW, there are dozens of ways to double check the CO2 readings. One of the easiest ways is to measure the carbonic acid content of the ocean. Would you like to guess which readings are deemed accurate and which ones aren't?
Once we settle this Jaws thing then we can move on to your 7 questions. If you can't understand something as simple as CO2 content then it's really not worth discussing anything else. This is very very basic stuff. The highschool nearest to where I'm sitting right now teaches the science behind CO2 measurements.
Post by: richyoung on May 25, 2007, 08:05:31 AM
Quote
- I asked YOU if he was "silly" back when he BELIEVED in anthropogenic climate change - which was back in the 1970's, when he thought mankind's generation of dust and particulates would trigger a new Ice Age. YOU still haven't answered that one...
Aerosols and particulates are a negative feedback that block out sunlight. So yes, they can cause cooling. How much light could be blocked was unknown in the 70s as there were no studies on aerosols back then. The assessment report by the NAS of sciences in 1974 was dead on the money. As for Jaworowski, he has always made outlandish claims. He claimed an ice age was coming four years ago. Back in 1994 he wrote a paper called: "The Posthumous Papers of Leaded Gasoline." And the oil companies, and strangely enough the tobacco companies, have certainly been fighting the concept of global warming before then. It would be interesting to see what happens if the courts force Exxon and the API to open their books like they did with tobacco.
So you admit an anthropogenic climate change advocate can be just as "silly" as a skeptic, right?
Quote
Quote
Not my job man.
If you can't backup your statements with proof then I suggest you don't make them at all.
If only your side would hold to that standard....
Lets review your debate tactic - inititially, you claim that there is NO opposition to Global Warming theory, then when LISTS of prominent scientists, some of whom used to be AGW advocates, your tactic is to claim they are all kkoks, industry stooges, and an (arbitrarily) insignifigant number. Then you expect * ME * to answer dome prepsterous "question" about percentages of societies that I have no access to. Bullpucky. Prominent scientist not only disagree with AGW - that number is INCREASING as more data comes in - which is what I've been saying all along - that the data at present doesn;t support it, and the case for it is getting weaker as time goes by.
Quote
Quote
I pose you a counter-challenge - find me a recent convert from skeptic to believer on this issue with a scientific background - as you should know, as more and more evidence comes in , more and more scientists recant.
According to Oreskes there wasn't a single consensus doubting paper from 1993-2003. If something was obvious to just about everyone in 1993 it's going to be hard for me to find a convert.
I'm not asking about PAPERS - I'm asking about the PUBLICLY STATED POSITIONS and QUOTES of scientists and mathmeticians concerning THEIR opinions on AGW. And speaking of concensus - SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! The majority, even of scientists, can be and often are WRONG! Case in point: an astonomer surveyed her colleges and found out 6 out of 10 believed "Carbon Dioxide" was the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere, (Tomkins, 1993). So much for "consensus".
Quote
Quote
THE TREND IS NOT IN YOUR DIRECTION.
Can I ask for proof? Or is that not your job either?
I've provided numerous examples of AGW supporters who have recanted - until YOU provide a similar number of conversions THE OTHER WAY AROUND, the burden of proof is on YOU>
Quote
Quote
And you still haven't answered why the other planets in the Solar System are heating up.
Yes I did. And so did Ian. We used different sources too. Search for the keyword "mars"
No you didn't. You said Mars might be due to dust storms, conveniently leaving out what is CAUSING the dust storms. Neither you nor Iain have adressed the documented warming on Jupiter, Titan, Pluto,....
Quote
Quote
Depends on what you are using them for, what you are using them on. I can certainly envision circumstances where the more sophisticated equipment can be spoofed or fooled.
The black dots are the glass tube readings that "Jaws" endorses. The red line is the Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer. The Ultramat takes readings which are accurate to less than 1ppm. The glass tube device can claim the CO2 content of the atmosphere can double not only from year to year but within 5 minutes. (do I really need to explain the insane quantity of CO2 it takes to do that?)
At one location - can easily happen. Lakes in Africa sometimes release enough CO2 to asphyxiate nearby villagers.
Quote
Which readings do you think are more accurate? These are the exact readings that "Jaws" debates.
Insufficient data to tell. Depends on how, when, & by whon they were used.
Quote
BTW, there are dozens of ways to double check the CO2 readings. One of the easiest ways is to measure the carbonic acid content of the ocean. Would you like to guess which readings are deemed accurate and which ones aren't?
Deemed don't mean squat - especially since there are multiple carbon sinks at work in the ocean that affect acidity - most of which vary due to environmental effects like sunlight and temperature. How well were the acidity readings normalized for those effects?
Quote
Once we settle this Jaws thing then we can move on to your 7 questions.
Fine - I'll remove your excuse then - I'll STIPULATE, for the sake of the discussion, YOU ARE RIGHT about Jaws. Your answeers, please.
Quote
If you can't understand something as simple as CO2 content then it's really not worth discussing anything else. This is very very basic stuff. The highschool nearest to where I'm sitting right now teaches the science behind CO2 measurements.
I certainly hope you did not mean to come off as smug and rude as that seems to be.
Post by: richyoung on May 26, 2007, 10:31:52 AM
1. The temperature increase in the last century of about 0.5 degree C occured BEFORE 1940.
2. 80% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels did not happen until AFTERWARD, with the rapid post-WWII industrialization.
So the question for you AGW believers is what field of science known to man has the EFFECT occur BEFORE the CAUSE?
Post by: richyoung on May 26, 2007, 10:58:16 AM
As many do, on 'both sides' you continue to appeal to authority. The opinions of these authorities are interesting and they are entirely possibly correct. They in fact may be correct, but despite claims to expertise the lay person should evaluate where these authorities fall in their own fields. To claim that your authorities are anything more than a minority in their field is incorrect.
Oh really? Lets look:
In late 1997 the German Meteorologishes Institut Hamburg and Forshungszentium surveyed specialists from the various branches of the climate sciences. They found that
87 percent of the scientists surveyed in Germany rejected the notion that any signifigant warming due to human activities was ccuring...
That figure was 67 percent in Canada.
It was 97 percent in the U.S.
Not exactly a concensus for AGW! (eco-logic, November/December, 1997 issue, p.21)
Then theres the Leipzig Declaration, the Hiedelberg Appeal, the Oregon Petition, etc,....
Post by: RocketMan on May 26, 2007, 09:23:50 PM
Quote
Scientists aren't lobbyists.
Snort...chuckle...
In someone's idealistic world, maybe.
Post by: richyoung on May 30, 2007, 04:33:30 AM
If Earth was a perfect "black body" radiator at thermal balance vis-a-vis the Sun, given that it is being irradiated essentially over the surface of a circle, but is irradiating for the surface of a sphere, what is the temperature?
What is the temperature NOW?
Since a theoretical "black body" is the warmest possible body, with all others at a lower temperature, what is the delta between the observed temp and the theoretical maximum temp?
Post by: doczinn on May 30, 2007, 05:30:03 AM
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
By David Evans
[A version of tihs article was previously blogged on Mises.org here, and inspired a spirited debate. The author reworked the piece for the Mises.org front page. The blog item remains the same.]
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
2. Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
4. There were no other credible causes of global warming.
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
"Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit."
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3. The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4. There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.
The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!
Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.
"Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations."
But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?
None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.
The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.
I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.
I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.
Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.
Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.
Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.
Post by: mountainclmbr on May 30, 2007, 06:58:57 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on May 30, 2007, 07:39:40 AM
Post by: richyoung on May 30, 2007, 09:06:22 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on May 30, 2007, 09:26:01 AM
but even that would subside after a while
Post by: wacki on May 30, 2007, 05:40:17 PM
Quote from: wacki
Once we settle this Jaws thing then we can move on to your 7 questions.
Fine - I'll remove your excuse then - I'll STIPULATE, for the sake of the discussion, YOU ARE RIGHT about Jaws. Your answeers, please.
I think you missed the point. Even among the skeptics, deniers and industry shills most of them refuse to debate the CO2 record because they know it will make them look like a fool and expose them for what they are. You just spent a considerable amount of time debating the very very basic concept of measuring CO2 and then agree with me on CO2 (within the very same post) just so I would answer your 7 questions. My condition was not on "winning a battle" but to simply see if you are capable of understanding the material or removing emotions from the debate. And in all honesty it seems like you are getting into a quote war without really understanding what you are quoting.
Quote
If you can't understand something as simple as CO2 content then it's really not worth discussing anything else. This is very very basic stuff. The highschool nearest to where I'm sitting right now teaches the science behind CO2 measurements.
I certainly hope you did not mean to come off as smug and rude as that seems to be.
I'm not trying to be rude. But you are shooting yourself in the foot when you debate the CO2 record using some of the arguments you are using.
Here are 10 CO2 monitoring locations:
I used microsoft excel and plotted 8 of the stations readings:
Look at the nice smooth curve with no deviations. Isn't that something? Talk about consistent data!
check the data yourself:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/data.html
Now look at Jaworowski's data dots, please not the Y axis has the exact same scale:
You know what else is nice and smooth? The ice cores! And what do they line up with? The super fancy super consistent direct reading gizmo data!
Yet Jaworowski's dots are all over the place. Jaworowski even references dots that were thrown out by the very people that took the measurements. And to insist that these CO2 jumps are accurate shows just how little one understands about the situation. It would require 532.5 billion tons of carbon to make a jump like that. You could burn every plant on the face of the earth and still not release enough CO2. (current estimates of worldwide biomass is 500 billion tons of carbon. Thats 32.5 billion tons short.) Volcanoes only emit 0.2 billion tons per year. So claiming 532.5 billion ton yearly shifts is "natural" is plain nonsense. This is pure nonsense and you are going to extreme lengths to defend his stance. Maybe I'm partly at fault for not being able to explain this stuff properly. I don't know. But I really don't know how to make it more obvious. But I do intend to take a sabbatical from this thread for a while.
If I come back it will be to hone my teaching skills as I think these threads are excellent practice for developing communication skills. And if I come back we will review one, and only one, concept at a time. And we will not deviate from that concept until it is crystal clear. But until then I think you need to sit down and calmly think about the CO2 readings. In all honesty the debate is over, nothing in this thread really matters, and I really don't give a damn about climate change or the hundreds of millions of deaths that will likely occur from it in the next 400 years. What I do give a damn about is the wholesale abuse of science and the general publics inability to understand it. So if you want to keep me interested in this thread I would appreciate it if you tell me what pieces of evidence or concepts I explain are convincing to you. Scientists are generally piss poor communicators and I hope to make a carrier out of communicating science in the biotech industry. I'm happy to teach but I need to learn from you just like you learn from me. Otherwise I'm not really getting anything out of this thread. And if I can't convince you that the CO2 record is legit then I'm wasting my time at the keyboard.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 30, 2007, 07:23:46 PM
Hinging everything on CO2 from active measurement or ice cores, if it is either irrelevent in the end or rather a response to other inputs rather than a driver, makes focusing on it missing the point when blood or treasure is on the line.
Post by: wacki on May 30, 2007, 08:37:33 PM
I would prefer you address CO2 being apparently a trailing, rather than a leading, indicator myself.
Hinging everything on CO2 from active measurement or ice cores, if it is either irrelevent in the end or rather a response to other inputs rather than a driver, makes focusing on it missing the point when blood or treasure is on the line.
Hinging everything on CO2 from active measurement or ice cores, if it is either irrelevent in the end or rather a response to other inputs rather than a driver, makes focusing on it missing the point when blood or treasure is on the line.
already answered.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115545#msg115545
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 30, 2007, 08:54:46 PM
I would prefer you address CO2 being apparently a trailing, rather than a leading, indicator myself.
Hinging everything on CO2 from active measurement or ice cores, if it is either irrelevent in the end or rather a response to other inputs rather than a driver, makes focusing on it missing the point when blood or treasure is on the line.
Hinging everything on CO2 from active measurement or ice cores, if it is either irrelevent in the end or rather a response to other inputs rather than a driver, makes focusing on it missing the point when blood or treasure is on the line.
already answered.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115545#msg115545
Quote
Some people will say "Watch what hapens to your soda as it heats up, the ocean works the same way." as proof of the CO2 isn't changing temperatures. It is true that colder water absorbs more CO2 but this is a reason NOT to warming up the oceans. If you are trying to reduce greenhouse gases the last thing you want to do is heat the ocean and cause it to release more greenhouse gases.
The key concept to remember is that if the CO2 lags then CO2 is a positive feedback that compounds warming. Permafrost melting is one such example of this. An alternative scenario is where the temperature is stable but some force is releasing CO2. Fossil Fuel burning is an example of this. In this case CO2 is not a positive feedback but is a driving force in warming up the earth. In this situation the CO2 increase will lead the temperature increase. In any case the CO2 lag debate is not definitive. The most recent research (Loulergue et al.) suggests that the CO2 in the ice cores may be in unison or even leading the temperature increase. Even though the paper has withstood several reviews it is too early to make a definitive statement on the timing.
The key concept to remember is that if the CO2 lags then CO2 is a positive feedback that compounds warming. Permafrost melting is one such example of this. An alternative scenario is where the temperature is stable but some force is releasing CO2. Fossil Fuel burning is an example of this. In this case CO2 is not a positive feedback but is a driving force in warming up the earth. In this situation the CO2 increase will lead the temperature increase. In any case the CO2 lag debate is not definitive. The most recent research (Loulergue et al.) suggests that the CO2 in the ice cores may be in unison or even leading the temperature increase. Even though the paper has withstood several reviews it is too early to make a definitive statement on the timing.
What part of "is not definitive" is "definitive", exactly?
That link reads an AWFUL lot like "this is our take on the extant hard evidence so you should see it our way".
Post by: richyoung on May 31, 2007, 05:49:59 AM
Also, in MY universe, a "black body radiator", a theoretically perfect absorber and re-radiator of energy, when at thermal equalibrium, is the theoretically hottest possible body for any given thermal conditions. Wrap your mind around this fact: there is NONE HOTTER, ...greenhouse effect or no. What figure do YOU calculate for Earth - IF it were a black body radiator? My sources say 288 Kelvin. What figure do YOU have for the current temperature of the Earth? Mine say 285 Kelvin. Simply put - thermodynamics indicates that the Earth CANNOT get much hotter, as it is NOT a perfect "black body" and is already near the theoretical maximum temperature for a balck body radiator. This, of course, is assuming:
1. No increase in the Sun's temperature/radiation.
2. No signifigant contribution from tidal stresses.
3. No signifigant contribution from radiactive decay. (Or detonation of nukes....).
IF the Earth IS getting warmer, the likely cause is #1, as no drastic changes in 2 or 3 have been recently reported - plus the other planets are getting warmer as well.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 31, 2007, 01:03:26 PM
Quote
NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem
Thursday , May 31, 2007
NASA initiated damage control Thursday as it tried to clarify remarks made earlier in the day by the space agency's administrator, who told a national radio audience that he doubted whether global warming was really a problem.
Administrator Michael D. Griffin's comments came just hours before President Bush called on 15 nations to set greenhouse-gas emission standards, an effort that Griffin's comments implied might be useless.
"I have no doubt that global that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told National Public Radio's Morning Edition in an interview aired early Thursday. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said.
But Griffin, who heads an agency with a $16.5 billion budget, wondered whether global warming was an issue that needed to be grappled with at all.
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
One of NASA's duties is charting global climate change.
"Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another," Griffin told NPR. "We study global climate change that is in our authorization. We think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
In a telephone interview with LiveScience.com, NASA chief spokesman David Mould clarified that while NASA collects and analyzes data pertaining to global warming, it does not set policy. He told the Houston Chronicle that Griffin was simply attempting to characterize the agency's role in assessing environmental issues.
Along the same lines, Griffin said in a press release Thursday after the interview aired:
"NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems.
"It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well."
Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate-change specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was less charitable to his agency head's remarks.
"Griffin's comments seem surprisingly naive," Schmidt wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience.com. "We are not in a situation where we are shopping around for an ideal climate, but that we have adapted to the climate we have, and that therefore large changes to it are not likely to be beneficial."
Bush delivered his remarks to the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C., ahead of his Group of Eight summit in Germany next week.
"The United States has taken the lead and that's the message I'm going to take to the G-8," Bush said.
Griffin, an aerospace engineer by training, may hold views contrary to many NASA staffers. Astrophysicist James E. Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to Congress about impending human-caused climate change in the 1980s, and more recently accused the Bush administration of trying to prevent him from speaking out about the issue.
Earlier this week, data collected by NASA satellites was released indicating that Greenland had experienced 10 more days of active snowmelt in the summer of 2006 than the average for the previous two decades.
Germany, the current president of the G-8 nations, earlier this week offered a proposal that would lower emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Bush rejected that approach in favor of autumn meetings to set target standards.
Thursday , May 31, 2007
NASA initiated damage control Thursday as it tried to clarify remarks made earlier in the day by the space agency's administrator, who told a national radio audience that he doubted whether global warming was really a problem.
Administrator Michael D. Griffin's comments came just hours before President Bush called on 15 nations to set greenhouse-gas emission standards, an effort that Griffin's comments implied might be useless.
"I have no doubt that global that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told National Public Radio's Morning Edition in an interview aired early Thursday. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said.
But Griffin, who heads an agency with a $16.5 billion budget, wondered whether global warming was an issue that needed to be grappled with at all.
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
One of NASA's duties is charting global climate change.
"Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another," Griffin told NPR. "We study global climate change that is in our authorization. We think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
In a telephone interview with LiveScience.com, NASA chief spokesman David Mould clarified that while NASA collects and analyzes data pertaining to global warming, it does not set policy. He told the Houston Chronicle that Griffin was simply attempting to characterize the agency's role in assessing environmental issues.
Along the same lines, Griffin said in a press release Thursday after the interview aired:
"NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems.
"It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well."
Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate-change specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was less charitable to his agency head's remarks.
"Griffin's comments seem surprisingly naive," Schmidt wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience.com. "We are not in a situation where we are shopping around for an ideal climate, but that we have adapted to the climate we have, and that therefore large changes to it are not likely to be beneficial."
Bush delivered his remarks to the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C., ahead of his Group of Eight summit in Germany next week.
"The United States has taken the lead and that's the message I'm going to take to the G-8," Bush said.
Griffin, an aerospace engineer by training, may hold views contrary to many NASA staffers. Astrophysicist James E. Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to Congress about impending human-caused climate change in the 1980s, and more recently accused the Bush administration of trying to prevent him from speaking out about the issue.
Earlier this week, data collected by NASA satellites was released indicating that Greenland had experienced 10 more days of active snowmelt in the summer of 2006 than the average for the previous two decades.
Germany, the current president of the G-8 nations, earlier this week offered a proposal that would lower emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Bush rejected that approach in favor of autumn meetings to set target standards.
Post by: wacki on June 01, 2007, 04:15:12 PM
That link reads an AWFUL lot like "this is our take on the extant hard evidence so you should see it our way".
you are right. I explained it horribly. I've edited the webpage.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/lags-not-leads.html
Quote
Triggers and Taking 5,000 Years To Warm Up
The shifts from the ice age to a warm period took about 5,000 years to complete. Since the supposed lag is only 800 years long this means that only the first 1/6th (800 out of 5,000) cannot be explained by CO2. Something other than CO2 started the shift from the ice age to warm period. We can call it a triggering event much like a trigger would fire Daniel Boone's musket. A warming earth, just like a bullet, needs much more than a trigger to get moving. In the musket a relatively weak trigger will either set off a stronger priming charge or spark a piece of flint. The priming charge or flint will then ignite the gunpowder. It is the gunpowder that does the bulk of the work. The same sort of thing happens in nature. Triggering events that are too weak to warm the planet by themselves but are strong enought to set other mechanisms in motion are the planets orbital (Milankovich) cycles and other cycles. DO events also play a roll in climate change. Such triggering events were actually predicted by James Hansen et. al. well before the ice core data even showed a possible lag. From (Lorius et al., 1990):
"changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"
Here James Hansen and others are predicting that the earths wobble (Milankovich cycle) are the triggering event. Greenhouse gases and melting ice sheets (which exposes more sun absorbing rock and dirt) were the expected positive feedbacks.
In any case there is debate as to whether or not CO2 lags behind the temperature. The most recent research (Loulergue et al.) suggests that the CO2 in the ice cores may be in unison or even leading the temperature increase. Even though the paper has withstood several reviews it is too early to make a definitive statement on the timing.
A Review of Three Key Concepts:
Feedback vs. Forcing, 5,000 years, and triggers
In summary there are three key concept to remember.The first is that the climate is like a Rube Goldberg machine. One small event can set off a series of chain events. The second is feedback vs. forcing. If a greenhouse gas lags then the gas *could* be a positive feedback that compounds warming. Permafrost melting is one such example of this. Here the trigger (a magically warming earth) unleashes powerfull greenhouse gases from the melting permafrost. These gases will lag behind the temperature increase but can still have a dramatic impact. An alternative scenario is where the temperature is stable but some force is releasing greenhouse gases. Fossil Fuel burning is an example of this. In this case the greenhouse gases are not a positive feedback but instead they are a driving force that is the initial cause of a warming earth. Here the trigger (fossil fuel burning is one such example) does not impact the climate directly. The third concept is that if the greenhouse gases are increasing only during the last 90% of the warming period that means only the first 10% of the warming period can be guaranteed to be independent of the greenhouse gases. The the 90% of the warming that occured during a period of greenhouse gas increase must be analyzed through calculations and physics to determine how much of the warming is related to the greenhouse gas.
The shifts from the ice age to a warm period took about 5,000 years to complete. Since the supposed lag is only 800 years long this means that only the first 1/6th (800 out of 5,000) cannot be explained by CO2. Something other than CO2 started the shift from the ice age to warm period. We can call it a triggering event much like a trigger would fire Daniel Boone's musket. A warming earth, just like a bullet, needs much more than a trigger to get moving. In the musket a relatively weak trigger will either set off a stronger priming charge or spark a piece of flint. The priming charge or flint will then ignite the gunpowder. It is the gunpowder that does the bulk of the work. The same sort of thing happens in nature. Triggering events that are too weak to warm the planet by themselves but are strong enought to set other mechanisms in motion are the planets orbital (Milankovich) cycles and other cycles. DO events also play a roll in climate change. Such triggering events were actually predicted by James Hansen et. al. well before the ice core data even showed a possible lag. From (Lorius et al., 1990):
"changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"
Here James Hansen and others are predicting that the earths wobble (Milankovich cycle) are the triggering event. Greenhouse gases and melting ice sheets (which exposes more sun absorbing rock and dirt) were the expected positive feedbacks.
In any case there is debate as to whether or not CO2 lags behind the temperature. The most recent research (Loulergue et al.) suggests that the CO2 in the ice cores may be in unison or even leading the temperature increase. Even though the paper has withstood several reviews it is too early to make a definitive statement on the timing.
A Review of Three Key Concepts:
Feedback vs. Forcing, 5,000 years, and triggers
In summary there are three key concept to remember.The first is that the climate is like a Rube Goldberg machine. One small event can set off a series of chain events. The second is feedback vs. forcing. If a greenhouse gas lags then the gas *could* be a positive feedback that compounds warming. Permafrost melting is one such example of this. Here the trigger (a magically warming earth) unleashes powerfull greenhouse gases from the melting permafrost. These gases will lag behind the temperature increase but can still have a dramatic impact. An alternative scenario is where the temperature is stable but some force is releasing greenhouse gases. Fossil Fuel burning is an example of this. In this case the greenhouse gases are not a positive feedback but instead they are a driving force that is the initial cause of a warming earth. Here the trigger (fossil fuel burning is one such example) does not impact the climate directly. The third concept is that if the greenhouse gases are increasing only during the last 90% of the warming period that means only the first 10% of the warming period can be guaranteed to be independent of the greenhouse gases. The the 90% of the warming that occured during a period of greenhouse gas increase must be analyzed through calculations and physics to determine how much of the warming is related to the greenhouse gas.
Any feedback you have will be helpful.
Post by: wacki on June 01, 2007, 04:29:36 PM
Nice to see my position supported by someone with some degrees.
This man was appointed as head of NASA by Bush. Wanna know who else Bush has appointed? The head of NOAA which Senator John McCain has threatened for his blatant violation of the law with regard to suppressing climate reports. Video here:
http://tinyurl.com/39cy36
Apparently the lady Bush appointed to head the national park service has banned park rangers from telling people the grand canyon is greater than 6,000 years old.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
I could list countless other situations. There are even a few bush appointees that are blocking doctors from saying too much sugar will make you fat. Nestle and Pepsi were major contributors to the bush election campaign.
Lets stay away from Bush appointees pls. And lets stay on topic. Discuss concepts and not these quote wars.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 01, 2007, 05:00:23 PM
This isn't some dismissable "fringe" take on the subject, it is a very valid philosophical and political viewpoint.
That the science, however consensual, is not necessarily being dealt with objectively on either side, even by some scientists and their political supporters, is patently obvious. Even ignoring that, the practical response to that science is also open to varying viewpoints on what can or should be done, and why.
Post by: wacki on June 01, 2007, 05:29:49 PM
I wasn't quoting him as "support", merely pointing out that his position mirrors mine and many others.
This isn't some dismissable "fringe" take on the subject, it is a very valid philosophical and political viewpoint.
That the science, however consensual, is not necessarily being dealt with objectively on either side, even by some scientists and their political supporters, is patently obvious. Even ignoring that, the practical response to that science is also open to varying viewpoints on what can or should be done, and why.
This isn't some dismissable "fringe" take on the subject, it is a very valid philosophical and political viewpoint.
That the science, however consensual, is not necessarily being dealt with objectively on either side, even by some scientists and their political supporters, is patently obvious. Even ignoring that, the practical response to that science is also open to varying viewpoints on what can or should be done, and why.
he said and you bolded/underlined this:
Quote
"And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
You can make arguments of a degree or two. But at either -5 degrees or + 5 degrees the earth becomes a very different place. You can't really make an argument that the US will be better off with a mile high sheet of ice over at least 1/2 of it. Or that Bangladesh will be better off when the entire country is underwater.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 01, 2007, 07:30:56 PM
nor is the rapidity of its occurrance should it prove to be so,
nor that the steps we may actually be able to make, without crippling unintended consequences, to try and prevent it will be effective; even if such a massive change should prove to be both real and swift,
so using such an extreme case as some kind of "winning" argument is specious and hardly convincing.
Instead the argument should be based on what has been demonstrably observed and what is realistic in terms of timeline for occurance and in terms of what can possibly and practicably be done about it.
Post by: kldimond on June 02, 2007, 12:12:59 AM
Here's the gist: global warming is the perfect "world government" argument, and the U.N. is salivating (sparing you all a really lurid reference that probably wouldn't be acceptable here) at the prospect.
I usually will take any cheap shot at the oil cabal. But I just think it's human arrogance to think that humanity is causing global warming. And the idea feeds an even worse cabal: those fascinated with absolutist government.
And as has been pointed up earlier in the discussion, there are theories, counter-theories and cross-theories about global warming. What is this, Three Days of the Condor? Who can we trust? Frankly, I trust skepticism more than I trust the--as it appears to me--wide-eyed herd of scientists.
I think it's pretty well established that warming is happening, but I think it's bogus that it's human caused. And if it IS human caused, maybe technological DEVELOPMENT is what's called for, instead of what "world government" will do, which is to stifle development and turn things upside down. Or worse, to flip around and let other industrial cabals to rule things.
The worst disaster I foresee is a dumb government reaction to global warming or some other bugaboo. Study the matter; learn all we can. Once there is REAL consensus--as in, it's almost incontrovertible--maybe there will be consensus among the people to do a thing. Otherwise, "get outta here!"
Post by: wacki on June 02, 2007, 12:21:34 PM
I think it's pretty well established that warming is happening, but I think it's bogus that it's human caused. And if it IS human caused, maybe technological DEVELOPMENT is what's called for, instead of what "world government" will do, which is to stifle development and turn things upside down.
politically, other than the fact that I think the human cause is a no-brainer, this is my position. As a libertarian we should be pushing technology development. Cuz if we don't do it now our freedoms are going to be screwed in the future. The cost of an Apollo style technology development program? 5 cents per gallon of gas. 99.9% of the scientific community is in agreement and denial only works for so long. An ounce of technology prevention is worth 50 pounds of Kyoto/UN cure.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 02, 2007, 02:01:07 PM
I guess AGW advocates need to learn from the anti-gun lobby. Ask for small things and they might get them. Ask for emergency measures and they end up with a circus. Last time I saw results from climate models, they were saying it would take 50 or 100 years to see a serious change. A lot can happen with research in that time. What I suspect is that the wild-eyed AGW advocates make more money sounding alarm bells than they would taking a slower and more careful approach.
I guess that is why I hate issues like this that get politically charged. The automatic govt solution is to ban or regulate things. As a fomer president said "..if it moves, tax it. If it is still moving, regulate it." or something like that.
Post by: wacki on June 02, 2007, 04:29:51 PM
wacki, I completely disagree with your view of this issue, however, I have no problem with what you just mentioned as a solution. I would have no problem with tax credits and grants for research/applications into non-CO2 power sources and building more of those power sources. That is easy and could lead to other benefits in other industries. Some of that is already in progress I think.
I hate to do quote wars but considering the alternative is a long and lengthy paper.....
"We are not starting to address climate change with the technology we have in hand, and we are not accelerating our investment in energy technology research and development," -Professor Holdren, Harvard Professor, President of AAAS, director of WHRC1
I agree that gore sucks as well.
Quote
I guess AGW advocates need to learn from the anti-gun lobby. Ask for small things and they might get them. Ask for emergency measures and they end up with a circus.
Agreed, everyone behind this Kyoto crap has shot themselves in the foot.
Quote
Last time I saw results from climate models, they were saying it would take 50 or 100 years to see a serious change. A lot can happen with research in that time. What I suspect is that the wild-eyed AGW advocates make more money sounding alarm bells than they would taking a slower and more careful approach.
The problem is that the massive delay effect. You pump a bunch of CO2 in the air now and the earth will still be warming up 400 years from now. If we don't start implementing carbon free or low carbon energy within the next 10 years then future generations are going to be in a lot of trouble. It takes time to warm up when you put a coat on. The same thing happens with the planet, only the planet is a lot larger.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 02, 2007, 06:56:34 PM
Only two ways I can think of putting a dent in CO2 production short term (20 years) is build a whole bunch of nuke plants and continuing to improve alternative vehicles at least for short haul commuters. Gas prices alone are pushing the 2nd and there is increasing support for the 1st though lots of red tape in the way.
Post by: richyoung on June 05, 2007, 04:33:34 AM
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 05, 2007, 04:57:59 AM
The arguement for energy independence is a much stronger arguement, but unfortunately the cure is not world socialism so it will not get any attention.
Post by: wacki on June 05, 2007, 01:34:09 PM
Quote
My sources say 288 Kelvin. What figure do YOU have for the current temperature of the Earth? Mine say 285 Kelvin. Simply put - thermodynamics indicates that the Earth CANNOT get much hotter, as it is NOT a perfect "black body" and is already near the theoretical maximum temperature for a balck body radiator.
I was ignoring your posts due to your inability to understand the very basic material relevant to CO2 sampling. In all honesty your sources aren't the most reliable. But when someone says "Well said richyoung." I have to respond. Your sources say 285 kelvin? That's 12 ºC which is lower than what the IPCC claims current temps are:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
You say the earth can't get hotter than 288 Kelvin? Then why do rocks suggest the earth used to be 70 degrees C?
The geologic record tells a story in which continents removed the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from an early atmosphere that may have been as hot as 70 degrees Celsius (158 F). At this time the Earth was mostly ocean. It was too hot to have any polar ice caps.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04h.html
This took me about 15 seconds of googling. I will agree that the risk of a Venusian runaway is extremely small but to rule it out as a physical impossibility is to fail to understand history.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 05, 2007, 06:06:04 PM
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 05, 2007, 06:33:49 PM
Quote
The geologic record tells a story in which continents removed the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from an early atmosphere that may have been as hot as 70 degrees Celsius (158 F). At this time the Earth was mostly ocean. It was too hot to have any polar ice caps.
I don't understand. The earth used to be warmer with no EVIL cars. At the Denver airport they have fossils excavated during construction of palm tree leaves in coal layers. Palm trees would die in their first winter now. Did humans cause the warming back then? No, no humans around. Did humans cause the cooling since? No, the last ice age ended with few humanoid ancestors around, certainly not driving cars. So now the cycle is repeating, for temperature change just like it has in the past. Now there are cars (and Communist control freaks). Suddenly it is different now.
Post by: wacki on June 05, 2007, 08:09:34 PM
285K may certainly be questionable,
from Met Office:
averages are now given to a precision of three decimal places to enable seasonal values to be calculated to ±0.01°C
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
They are claiming their readings are accurate to ±0.01°C and rich young is claiming they are off by 3°C? There is certainly a discrepancy here. Are you going to believe rich over the met office?
Quote
but posting a source that is guessing about conditions over 4 billion years ago isn't any better.
Are you sure?
We use isotope readings to tell what the temperatures were from the ice cores. Ice cores are more accurate than any thermometer most people will have in their home. There is an ice ring much like a tree ring so we can tell which year was what. We have hundreds of ice cores and they behave the way we'd expect them to so it's a very safe bet that they are a very accurate form of temp reconstruction.
I know sedimentary rocks (many are created from diatoms) also store temperature records via isotopes. Isotopes in corals also store temperature records. I assume the accuracy of the temperature records isn't that different due to similar laws of physics with regard to isotopes. I don't know for sure though. The only problem with rocks and corals is that there isn't a yearly resolution. A single layer/ring of ice will consistently stand for a single year in time. A single layer of rock may represent a hundred or even a thousand years or so (I'm guessing here just to explain the concept). The time resolution is definitely not there. But if you are going back a million years it really doesn't matter if you are off by a thousand years or even 10,000 years. You still have a general idea what things looked like back then. Again I haven't studied rocks so I can't attest either way but that is the general concept.
Also here is an interesting story about an extinction event called the great dying:
Quote
These new data show that extensive volcanism over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, causing Earth's temperatures to rise from 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, write the scientists.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/11/great_dying_tied_to_global_war.php
Again, it would seem richyoung's "it can't get hotter" theory is incorrect. I haven't calculated the perfect black body of CO2 spectrum in a vacuum. But in all honesty I doubt I will because the answer will be a math exercise that has little meaning. There are a lot of positive feedbacks like methane, albedo of ice sheets, etc that come into play. Even in the swings of the ice age CO2 is calculated to be only 1/3 of the warming while albedo changes was 2/3s.
Final note: If someone is going to cite something he needs to give his sources. I have a hobby of documenting and thoroughly analyzing arguments like these. If rich young is interested in the truth he will share with us who is making these claims.
Post by: richyoung on June 06, 2007, 04:42:51 AM
Quote
My sources say 288 Kelvin. What figure do YOU have for the current temperature of the Earth? Mine say 285 Kelvin. Simply put - thermodynamics indicates that the Earth CANNOT get much hotter, as it is NOT a perfect "black body" and is already near the theoretical maximum temperature for a balck body radiator.
I was ignoring your posts due to your inability to understand the very basic material relevant to CO2 sampling. In all honesty your sources aren't the most reliable. But when someone says "Well said richyoung." I have to respond. Your sources say 285 kelvin? That's 12 ºC which is lower than what the IPCC claims current temps are:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
1. I understand the CO2 data fine - you persist in trusting sources I don;t and vice-vera. That is NOT the same as one of us not "understanding", but thanks for the subtle personal attack in lieu of actual discussion...
2. As should be understoof by ALL now, the IPCC is a political group with little credibility now.
3. from: http://www.ianschumacher.com/maximum_temperature.htm
Quote
lHypothesis 1: The average temperature of a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with an external energy source can never exceed the temperature of a black body in the same environment.
Hypothesis 1, does not seem particularly revolutionary and to most people with a physics background they probably seem rather trivial and obvious. However, this statement up front is unfortunately necessary in order to overcome the common misinterpretation of the greenhouse effect that allows for conditions to violate Hypothesis 1. When trying to determine the maximum temperature of the Earth, it is important to know which mechanisms limit this maximum. The parallels between our high-pass filter example and the greenhouse effect are obvious, so does this mean that the greenhouse effect does not exist? No, it does not mean any such thing. The greenhouse effect is real, however it does mean that the greenhouse effect can never produce a temperature that is higher than the temperature of a black body in the same environment.
Hypothesis 2: The greenhouse effect can never produce a temperature that is higher than the temperature of a black body in the same environment.
For many readers this will cause a great pause and some reflection. It has become conventional wisdom that the greenhouse effect has essentially no limits, but this is clearly not true. The greenhouse effect works exactly as previously described. High-energy high-frequency light enters through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface and atmosphere to produce low-energy low-frequency thermal radiation. This low frequency thermal radiation is more readily absorbed by the atmosphere and is radiated back to the surface and out to space. The result of the greenhouse effect is to raise the equivalent absorptivity of Earth closer and closer to unity (but never exceeding it). To those having trouble believing Hypothesis 2, I recommend they work through Hypothesis 1 in their mind until it becomes clear that this must be the case.The sun, the moon, and the earth
It should now be clear that the maximum temperature of Earth can not be higher than the maximum temperature of an equivalent black body. We will now try to evaluate what that maximum is. For simplicity, all values and graphs have been obtained from Wikipedia unless otherwise stated.
The moon is quite close to a black body. It is estimated to have an absorptivity of 0.88. Conveniently the moon is nearly in the same environment in space as the Earth. The maximum temperature found on the moon is approximately 390° K. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation described earlier the maximum flux on the moon is
aS=oT^4
which for our values gives a flux of 1491 W/m^2. Already we have a problem. The flux on Earth from the sun as measured by satellites is widely reported to be around 1366 W/m^2, or significantly lower. Why the discrepancy? It is interesting to note that even with only these three elements, moon data, sun data, and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we end up with slightly inconsistent results, which may give us some insight into the level of uncertainty in the data that still remains in this area. Since we are interested in the maximum temperature we will take the maximum value of 1491 W/m^2.
The earth is approximately spherical and receives light from the sun on a cross-sectional area of a circle, but radiates thermal energy from the area of a sphere. The ratio of the spherical area to the circular area is 4. Dividing the incoming energy flux by 4 gives the Earth an approximate maximum temperature of 285° K. Again we have another inconsistency as this maximum temperature is below the widely reported global average temperature of 288° K. Also the earth has an uneven distribution of temperatures and therefore an uneven distribution of flux, the end result of which would be to lower the average temperature even more. Still the result is quite close and it suggests that the Earth is behaving very closely to a black body and is operating very close to its maximum possible temperature.
Hypothesis 3: The earth is operating very close to its maximum possible temperature.
Again, this will cause many to pause as it goes against the conventional wisdom. However we will attempt to provide two pieces of evidence to support this case:
ice ages and the runaway greenhouse effect
climate variability/stability
Ice ages and the runaway greenhouse effect
There is a surprising amount of debate about what causes ice ages and their ending. The core feature of ice ages is their remarkable periodicity. The figure below shows sample data for the last four ice ages.
{sorry - don;t know how to copy graph - go to the web site if you want to see it...}
The most likely cause of the ice ages is due to fluctuations in the intensity and the distribution of solar radiation caused by changes in the tilt in the Earth's axis. This theory was first described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major cyclical components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to these fluctuations: the procession (tilt of the Earth's axis), as well as Earth's orbital eccentricity and orbital tilt. The exact cause and effect relationship between orbital forcing and ice ages is still a matter of great debate, however the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovitch orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. Other theories include greenhouse gas forcing, changes in the Earth's plate tectonics, changes in solar variation, and changes in absorptivity due to dust and gases spewed by volcanoes.
The exact cause of the ice ages is not critical to our discussion other than to note that the Earth appears to have two metastable states: an ice age period and a warm period.
Of note in the above figure is the strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. As the temperature increases, ice sheets recede, which increases the absorptivity of the earth, and more carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases are released. This increases the temperature further, which causes the ice sheets to recede further, and causes more greenhouse gases to be released, etc. This is a positive feedback loop and is the runaway greenhouse effect in action. The positive feedback also works in the opposite direction causing the earth to drastically fluctuate between these two metastable states. What causes this runaway greenhouse effect to end? The answer is that once the earth has achieved its maximum absorptivity (or very close to it), additional receding ice or greenhouse gases becomes irrelevant. The climate is pinned to the maximum possible value.
Hypothesis 1, does not seem particularly revolutionary and to most people with a physics background they probably seem rather trivial and obvious. However, this statement up front is unfortunately necessary in order to overcome the common misinterpretation of the greenhouse effect that allows for conditions to violate Hypothesis 1. When trying to determine the maximum temperature of the Earth, it is important to know which mechanisms limit this maximum. The parallels between our high-pass filter example and the greenhouse effect are obvious, so does this mean that the greenhouse effect does not exist? No, it does not mean any such thing. The greenhouse effect is real, however it does mean that the greenhouse effect can never produce a temperature that is higher than the temperature of a black body in the same environment.
Hypothesis 2: The greenhouse effect can never produce a temperature that is higher than the temperature of a black body in the same environment.
For many readers this will cause a great pause and some reflection. It has become conventional wisdom that the greenhouse effect has essentially no limits, but this is clearly not true. The greenhouse effect works exactly as previously described. High-energy high-frequency light enters through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface and atmosphere to produce low-energy low-frequency thermal radiation. This low frequency thermal radiation is more readily absorbed by the atmosphere and is radiated back to the surface and out to space. The result of the greenhouse effect is to raise the equivalent absorptivity of Earth closer and closer to unity (but never exceeding it). To those having trouble believing Hypothesis 2, I recommend they work through Hypothesis 1 in their mind until it becomes clear that this must be the case.The sun, the moon, and the earth
It should now be clear that the maximum temperature of Earth can not be higher than the maximum temperature of an equivalent black body. We will now try to evaluate what that maximum is. For simplicity, all values and graphs have been obtained from Wikipedia unless otherwise stated.
The moon is quite close to a black body. It is estimated to have an absorptivity of 0.88. Conveniently the moon is nearly in the same environment in space as the Earth. The maximum temperature found on the moon is approximately 390° K. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation described earlier the maximum flux on the moon is
aS=oT^4
which for our values gives a flux of 1491 W/m^2. Already we have a problem. The flux on Earth from the sun as measured by satellites is widely reported to be around 1366 W/m^2, or significantly lower. Why the discrepancy? It is interesting to note that even with only these three elements, moon data, sun data, and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we end up with slightly inconsistent results, which may give us some insight into the level of uncertainty in the data that still remains in this area. Since we are interested in the maximum temperature we will take the maximum value of 1491 W/m^2.
The earth is approximately spherical and receives light from the sun on a cross-sectional area of a circle, but radiates thermal energy from the area of a sphere. The ratio of the spherical area to the circular area is 4. Dividing the incoming energy flux by 4 gives the Earth an approximate maximum temperature of 285° K. Again we have another inconsistency as this maximum temperature is below the widely reported global average temperature of 288° K. Also the earth has an uneven distribution of temperatures and therefore an uneven distribution of flux, the end result of which would be to lower the average temperature even more. Still the result is quite close and it suggests that the Earth is behaving very closely to a black body and is operating very close to its maximum possible temperature.
Hypothesis 3: The earth is operating very close to its maximum possible temperature.
Again, this will cause many to pause as it goes against the conventional wisdom. However we will attempt to provide two pieces of evidence to support this case:
ice ages and the runaway greenhouse effect
climate variability/stability
Ice ages and the runaway greenhouse effect
There is a surprising amount of debate about what causes ice ages and their ending. The core feature of ice ages is their remarkable periodicity. The figure below shows sample data for the last four ice ages.
{sorry - don;t know how to copy graph - go to the web site if you want to see it...}
The most likely cause of the ice ages is due to fluctuations in the intensity and the distribution of solar radiation caused by changes in the tilt in the Earth's axis. This theory was first described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major cyclical components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to these fluctuations: the procession (tilt of the Earth's axis), as well as Earth's orbital eccentricity and orbital tilt. The exact cause and effect relationship between orbital forcing and ice ages is still a matter of great debate, however the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milankovitch orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. Other theories include greenhouse gas forcing, changes in the Earth's plate tectonics, changes in solar variation, and changes in absorptivity due to dust and gases spewed by volcanoes.
The exact cause of the ice ages is not critical to our discussion other than to note that the Earth appears to have two metastable states: an ice age period and a warm period.
Of note in the above figure is the strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. As the temperature increases, ice sheets recede, which increases the absorptivity of the earth, and more carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases are released. This increases the temperature further, which causes the ice sheets to recede further, and causes more greenhouse gases to be released, etc. This is a positive feedback loop and is the runaway greenhouse effect in action. The positive feedback also works in the opposite direction causing the earth to drastically fluctuate between these two metastable states. What causes this runaway greenhouse effect to end? The answer is that once the earth has achieved its maximum absorptivity (or very close to it), additional receding ice or greenhouse gases becomes irrelevant. The climate is pinned to the maximum possible value.
Quote
You say the earth can't get hotter than 288 Kelvin? Then why do rocks suggest the earth used to be 70 degrees C?
The geologic record tells a story in which continents removed the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from an early atmosphere that may have been as hot as 70 degrees Celsius (158 F). At this time the Earth was mostly ocean. It was too hot to have any polar ice caps.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04h.html
The geologic record tells a story in which continents removed the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from an early atmosphere that may have been as hot as 70 degrees Celsius (158 F). At this time the Earth was mostly ocean. It was too hot to have any polar ice caps.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-04h.html
What was the solar output at that time? What was Earth's orbit at that time? What was the MOON's orbit, and how much tidal friction was heating the Earth's crust? What was the thermal contribution from vulcanism and the radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust? What was the thermal effect of chemical reactions then occuring?For someone who likes to accuse others of not "understanding", you seem unable to grasp that:
1. Correlation is not causation. Yes, it was hot back then, and CO2 was high. That doesn't mean one caused the other.
2. ALL discussions are "ceteris parabus". We can't have a meaningful discussion if you are going to use counter examples from billions of years ago with different orbits, solar flux, tidal conditions, etc. "Global Warming" theory is about NOW, under current and CONSTANT solar output - which is where it fails.
Quote
This took me about 15 seconds of googling. I will agree that the risk of a Venusian runaway is extremely small but to rule it out as a physical impossibility is to fail to understand history.
To rule a Venusian runaway IN is to ignore billions of years of fossil record history AND the laws of thermodynamics. I suggest you get a grasp of them before accusing OTHERS of a lack of cogitative ability....
Post by: richyoung on June 07, 2007, 08:15:48 AM
285K may certainly be questionable,
from Met Office:
averages are now given to a precision of three decimal places to enable seasonal values to be calculated to ±0.01°C
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
They are claiming their readings are accurate to ±0.01°C and rich young is claiming they are off by 3°C? There is certainly a discrepancy here. Are you going to believe rich over the met office?
*{sigh}* ...from my previous response...
The earth is approximately spherical and receives light from the sun on a cross-sectional area of a circle, but radiates thermal energy from the area of a sphere. The ratio of the spherical area to the circular area is 4. Dividing the incoming energy flux by 4 gives the Earth an approximate maximum temperature of 285° K. Again we have another inconsistency as this maximum temperature is below the widely reported global average temperature of 288° K. Also the earth has an uneven distribution of temperatures and therefore an uneven distribution of flux, the end result of which would be to lower the average temperature even more. Still the result is quite close and it suggests that the Earth is behaving very closely to a black body and is operating very close to its maximum possible temperature
Quote
Also here is an interesting story about an extinction event called the great dying:
Quote
These new data show that extensive volcanism over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, causing Earth's temperatures to rise from 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, write the scientists.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/11/great_dying_tied_to_global_war.php
Obviously,
1. Wacki isn't the ONLY one who doesn't understand that correlation is not causation.
2. None of these scientists have a basic college understangin of thermodynamics - cause it don't work that way.
Quote
Again, it would seem richyoung's "it can't get hotter" theory is incorrect. I haven't calculated the perfect black body of CO2 spectrum in a vacuum. But in all honesty I doubt I will because the answer will be a math exercise that has little meaning. There are a lot of positive feedbacks like methane, albedo of ice sheets, etc that come into play. Even in the swings of the ice age CO2 is calculated to be only 1/3 of the warming while albedo changes was 2/3s.
Say it loud and say it proud - NOTHING can cause a body to exceed its theoretical "black body" temperature when ALL OTHER parameters are constant....
Quote
Final note: If someone is going to cite something he needs to give his sources. I have a hobby of documenting and thoroughly analyzing arguments like these. If rich young is interested in the truth he will share with us who is making these claims.
See my previous response....
Post by: MechAg94 on June 07, 2007, 12:37:22 PM
Are you sure?
Um... Yeah I am. All you have to do is read the beginning of that article to realize those scientists are guessing at cause of the temperature change and throwing out the same GW propaganda language you see in the media. No problem with that, it happened a really long time ago and data is limited. As Rich said above, lots of different factors could have caused it. It just isn't a good source for what you are trying to prove in that post above. All these mechanisms are based on many, many assumed factors that have to be used.One reason I hate threads like this. It turns into a link competition. Who can post more links and data that no one has time read much less to evaluate sources. The end result is no one cares and no one changes their mind. I agree that the IPCC is a UN political organization and should not be taken at face value.
Post by: wacki on June 07, 2007, 02:43:45 PM
Are you sure?
Um... Yeah I am. All you have to do is read the beginning of that article to realize those scientists are guessing at cause of the temperature change and throwing out the same GW propaganda language you see in the media. No problem with that, it happened a really long time ago and data is limited. As Rich said above, lots of different factors could have caused it. It just isn't a good source for what you are trying to prove in that post above. All these mechanisms are based on many, many assumed factors that have to be used.I actually agree with this and I used a bad counterargument. We just don't have enough data to rule out the sun and other factors when talking about many millions of years ago. At first I thought you were denouncing radio dating and the entire technique of gathering information from rocks. It appears that this is not what you were doing. My apologies. You have been very civil and I appreciate your comments.
Quote
One reason I hate threads like this. It turns into a link competition. Who can post more links and data that no one has time read much less to evaluate sources. The end result is no one cares and no one changes their mind.
Which is why I've tried to limit this conversation to one mechanism/theory at a time.
Quote
I agree that the IPCC is a UN political organization and should not be taken at face value.
After the oil for food scam, the UN's blocking of South African surplus ammo, and countless other misdeeds I hate the UN as much as the next guy. The problem with this statement though is that the IPCC's report has been endorsed by every major scientific society in the US. It has also been endorsed by 21 different National Academies. So if you are going to denounce the IPCC report as political trash then you will have to denounce pretty much every scientific society on the planet.
Doing the same in the medicine would be akin to abandoning big pharma for witchcraft.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 07, 2007, 05:03:21 PM
Quote
I agree that the IPCC is a UN political organization and should not be taken at face value.
After the oil for food scam, the UN's blocking of South African surplus ammo, and countless other misdeeds I hate the UN as much as the next guy. The problem with this statement though is that the IPCC's report has been endorsed by every major scientific society in the US. It has also been endorsed by 21 different National Academies. So if you are going to denounce the IPCC report as political trash then you will have to denounce pretty much every scientific society on the planet.
Doing the same in the medicine would be akin to abandoning big pharma for witchcraft.
Except big pharma consists of soulless, profit-driven corporations.
I find those more predictable, and thus trustworthy, than governmental or non-profit organizations with, self-declared, "altruistic" motives.
Post by: Iain on June 07, 2007, 11:55:02 PM
Nice to see my position supported by someone with some degrees.
carebear - don't really want to get involved in this conversation too much again.
Did some reading about Griffin's comments. Interestingly he has apologised for the way they came across rather then their content as apparently he himself instituted a policy whereby all NASA employees have to make a clear distinction between policy and their own opinion when speaking to the press.
Griffin is an engineer, with an apparently impressive set of engineering credentials. He hasn't published anything about climate change nor has any relevant degrees. So now he has made clear that his comments were his own opinion and not that of NASA you have to decide upon the validity of his opinion in a field he is not personally expert, especially when it is not a widely held opinion amongst experts in that field.
Post by: richyoung on June 08, 2007, 04:47:54 AM
Quote
I agree that the IPCC is a UN political organization and should not be taken at face value.
After the oil for food scam, the UN's blocking of South African surplus ammo, and countless other misdeeds I hate the UN as much as the next guy. The problem with this statement though is that the IPCC's report has been endorsed by every major scientific society in the US. It has also been endorsed by 21 different National Academies. So if you are going to denounce the IPCC report as political trash then you will have to denounce pretty much every scientific society on the planet.
Doing the same in the medicine would be akin to abandoning big pharma for witchcraft.
How many governments endorsed the oil-for-
Post by: MechAg94 on June 08, 2007, 05:32:30 AM
Quote
Which is why I've tried to limit this conversation to one mechanism/theory at a time.
Even that can be troublesome as it is difficult to only change one variable or effect in real life.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 08, 2007, 08:55:31 AM
Nice to see my position supported by someone with some degrees.
carebear - don't really want to get involved in this conversation too much again.
Did some reading about Griffin's comments. Interestingly he has apologised for the way they came across rather then their content as apparently he himself instituted a policy whereby all NASA employees have to make a clear distinction between policy and their own opinion when speaking to the press.
Griffin is an engineer, with an apparently impressive set of engineering credentials. He hasn't published anything about climate change nor has any relevant degrees. So now he has made clear that his comments were his own opinion and not that of NASA you have to decide upon the validity of his opinion in a field he is not personally expert, especially when it is not a widely held opinion amongst experts in that field.
As I stated already, and should be clear from his remarks...
His position, and mine, is philosophical, about what should and can be logically done with the science, not particularly about the credibility of the science itself. Thus his degrees and position being non-climateological are not particularly relevent, they merely help establish he isn't some mouth-breather (like me).
I can grant the accuracy of the observations all day long and still quite reasonably disagree with the premises and the conclusions of those making the observations.
Heck, even if they are right to within their degree of certainty (which is not absolute) I can still rationally disagree on what steps should be taken to "fix" the problem.
That's the real issue, who gets to decide what and how much we do about it. Technocrats? Supra-national bodies given the ability to transcend national and individual sovereignty? Newly created extra-Constitutional national agencies?
Post by: richyoung on June 08, 2007, 09:05:23 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 08, 2007, 05:43:03 PM
Post by: wacki on June 09, 2007, 08:55:35 AM
As long as the UN and its supporters have some control over the grant money, I wouldn't discount political motives at all.
There are plenty of organizations that are looking for proof of this. Heck, even the BBC is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm
If you can prove that skeptics have their funding cut then I'm sure Exxon would be happy to give you $10,000. Btw, all government grant records are public property.
Post by: wacki on June 09, 2007, 09:00:52 AM
Quote
The geologic record tells a story in which continents removed the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from an early atmosphere that may have been as hot as 70 degrees Celsius (158 F). At this time the Earth was mostly ocean. It was too hot to have any polar ice caps.
I don't understand. The earth used to be warmer with no EVIL cars. At the Denver airport they have fossils excavated during construction of palm tree leaves in coal layers. Palm trees would die in their first winter now. Did humans cause the warming back then? No, no humans around. Did humans cause the cooling since? No, the last ice age ended with few humanoid ancestors around, certainly not driving cars. So now the cycle is repeating, for temperature change just like it has in the past. Now there are cars (and Communist control freaks). Suddenly it is different now.
I don't understand. The earth used to be warmer with no EVIL nuclear bombs. 5 billion years ago the earth was once a molten hot rock devoid of any and all life. Did humans cause the warming back then? No, no humans around. Did humans cause the nuclear bomb in the sky to go off and encompass the earth?? No, 5 billion years ago there were no humans, and there were no nuclear bombs. So now the cycle is repeating. One day when a terrorist blows up a nuclear bomb in new york the earth will turn into molten rock just like it has in the past. Now there are nuclear bombs (and tree hugging hippies). Suddenly it is different now.
Post by: richyoung on June 10, 2007, 06:27:19 PM
Question - what ENDED the last Ice Age? I'm pretty sure it wasn't man driving his Ford Expidition to his job in the coal-fired power plant.....
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 11, 2007, 07:58:58 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 11, 2007, 09:30:08 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 11, 2007, 10:18:33 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 11, 2007, 10:22:15 AM
As long as the UN and its supporters have some control over the grant money, I wouldn't discount political motives at all.
There are plenty of organizations that are looking for proof of this. Heck, even the BBC is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm
If you can prove that skeptics have their funding cut then I'm sure Exxon would be happy to give you $10,000. Btw, all government grant records are public property.
Notice I didn't say skeptics get their budgets cut as you said. All the grants are going to pro-AGW research. The political tilt isn't always in the research, but in the interpretation. I think people like UN are trying to use it to push for greater international control/authority.
Post by: wacki on June 11, 2007, 02:38:03 PM
As long as the UN and its supporters have some control over the grant money, I wouldn't discount political motives at all.
There are plenty of organizations that are looking for proof of this. Heck, even the BBC is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm
If you can prove that skeptics have their funding cut then I'm sure Exxon would be happy to give you $10,000. Btw, all government grant records are public property.
With the tens of millions that Exxon spends lobbying against global warming do you really think they aren't looking?
Quote
Even NASA is on board since they see it as a vehicle to insure their budget isn't cut.
This assumption would mean that the people at Goddard are the same as the people people at Johnson Space Center when in fact they are from completely different fields. The head of NASA is appointed by bush and recently gave some anti-consensus remarks. Completely finished satellites have been boxed up despite offers from France, the Ukraine, and others to launch the satellite for free.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/free_dscovr.php
There's no reason for that unless you are trying to hide something. And if you've read any of the headlines within the last 4 years you would know that NASA's research division is being gutted. Goddard is getting even harsher treatment. But who cares, space is for soldiers....
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002837.html
If you are going to claim conspiracy it's much easier to point the finger at a few dozen in power than tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. I'm sorry but the vast majority of the proof is against your thesis.
Quote
Notice I didn't say skeptics get their budgets cut as you said. All the grants are going to pro-AGW research.
Don't these two statements conflict? If all the grants are going to the pro-AGW research wouldn't that mean the skeptics are being cut? Richard Lindzen doesn't have problems getting funding. Here's a question, do you even know how to look up what funding goes where? The information is freely available on the internet. I would think this would be the very first step (of many) in knowing what you are talking about when making claims like this. Besides, science doesn't even work that way. You can't decide science. That's the beauty of it. And to claim you can bend the laws of nature just because you want to is to exhibit a gross failure in understanding how the laws of physics work. Either an experiment is reproducible or it isn't. If data was being falsified someone would find out.
Quote
The political tilt isn't always in the research, but in the interpretation. I think people like UN are trying to use it to push for greater international control/authority.
There are a lot of people on this list:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
That aren't a part of the UN.
This conversation is going off the deep end real quick. Here's a challenge to you sir. If you are so sure the IPCC report is fraudulent I challenge you to find 10 climate change skeptics that have either published a consensus debunking peer review journal or an editorial in some newspaper. If the skeptics don't say anything then I can't analyze them. I will then analyze their statements and will point out some pretty obvious mistakes these people have made. I assure you the results of this little contest will be rather interesting. When discussing this topic with people that have a 4 year college education in a science field I would normally pick 4 as the magic number. That is all I need to make a point. Only 4 skeptics out of the 40,000 member of the AGU! And who knows how many worldwide. :-D But since I doubt everyone here has graduated from college with a science degree I will increase the number to 10.
Good luck and happy hunting. Remember you only need to find 10 credible skeptics!
Post by: MechAg94 on June 11, 2007, 03:47:23 PM
Why would Exxon be lobbying against GW? If I were them, I would just be lobbying against half baked solutions that people like you seem to support. You seem to believe humans are causing global warming, but I haven't seen you putting out solutions of your own. If you don't have any, what is all the argument about?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 11, 2007, 04:29:37 PM
Post by: wacki on June 11, 2007, 07:03:27 PM
Why would Exxon be lobbying against GW?
burning oil = CO2. Maybe that has something to do with why the've spent tens of millions lobbying against AGW.Quote
You seem to believe humans are causing global warming, but I haven't seen you putting out solutions of your own. If you don't have any, what is all the argument about?
I've posted solutions multiple times.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114700;topicseen#msg114700
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115015;topicseen#msg115015
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114924;topicseen#msg114924
In fact you even responded to one of them saying:
"wacki, I completely disagree with your view of this issue, however, I have no problem with what you just mentioned as a solution. "
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg117860;topicseen#msg117860
Yup, this thread has gone totally off the deep end. Well, it was fun while it lasted.
Post by: richyoung on June 11, 2007, 07:10:39 PM
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 12, 2007, 05:14:04 AM
Quote
burning oil = CO2. Maybe that has something to do with why the've spent tens of millions lobbying against AGW
And, conversely, why would the UN, the European socialist governments, the USA Democrat party and the Green Party everywhere lobby for GW when the Kyoto fix (the socialist redistribution of national wealth) was in the works before the research started?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 12, 2007, 10:15:08 AM
Sure the Mt. K info shouldn't be misused to counter general claims of GW but the arrogance of any scientist or group of scientists trying to decide what should be revealed to the public, "for our own good", is exactly the technocratic BS that has so many of us up in arms.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003744089_kilimanjaro12m.html
Quote
Kilimanjaro not a victim of climate change, UW scientist says
By Sandi Doughton
Seattle Times science reporter
The shrinking snowcap atop Mount Kilimanjaro has become an icon of global warming.
Pictures of the African peak, which has lost 90 percent of its ice cover, were featured in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Greenpeace activists once held a satellite news conference on the summit to sway participants in an international climate conference.
But most scientists who study Kilimanjaro's glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano's poster-child status.
Yes, ice cover has shrunk by 90 percent, they say.
But no, the buildup of greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and factories is not to blame.
"Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change," said University of Washington climate scientist Philip Mote, co-author of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine.
Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends.
He hastens to add that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the fact that nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away. Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study.
Rising nearly four miles from the plains of eastern Tanzania, Kilimanjaro has seen its glaciers decline steadily for well over a century since long before humans began pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Mote points out.
Most of the world's glaciers didn't begin their precipitous declines until the 1970s, when measurable global warming first appeared.
Also, recent data from Kilimanjaro show temperatures on the 19,340-foot volcano never rise above freezing. So melting triggered by a warmer atmosphere can't be the reason the small summit ice sheet is retreating about 3 feet a year, said Georg Kaser, co-author of the new article and a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.
Most glaciers in temperate zones, like those on Mount Rainier, extend to lower elevations where their terminus is warmed to the melting point in summer.
On Kilimanjaro, ice loss seems to be driven by two factors: a lack of snowfall and sublimation, the same process that causes freezer burn by sucking moisture out of leftovers.
Researchers believe Kilimanjaro's glaciers formed about 11,000 years ago, when the region was undergoing a period of wet weather that allowed snow to accumulate. But even before the first Europeans reached the summit in 1889, the weather has been dry in Eastern Africa. There simply hasn't been enough snowfall to keep up with the loss of ice due to sublimation, Kaser explained.
Sublimation, caused by exposure to sunlight and dry air, occurs when ice essentially skips the melting step and evaporates.
Kaser, who climbs Kilimanjaro twice a year to gather data, says the ice topography shows little evidence that melting is anything but a minor force. Jagged spires and cliffs made of ice up to 120 feet tall are not softened around the edges.
Other researchers say melting may become more important if global temperatures continue to climb. Some have reported water gushing from boreholes and glacier margins. It's also possible climate change may play a role in droughts that have starved Kilimanjaro of snow, though that pattern was established before the planet began to warm significantly, Kaser said.
He was the first to point out the disconnect between global-warming rhetoric and scientific data from Kilimanjaro. His 2004 findings became fodder for conservative Web sites and global-warming skeptics many funded by the oil and coal industries who argued that all reports about melting glaciers are suspect.
The debate was so rancorous that a co-author of the 2004 study decided not to lend his name to the American Scientist article, which summarizes what researchers have learned about Kilimanjaro's complex ice dynamics.
Even though the mountain presents an interesting scientific puzzle, it's an anomaly compared to what's happening with other glaciers, said Douglas Hardy, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Massachusetts. The new article will be seized on by "global warming naysayers" and could give people the mistaken impression that it calls global warming into question, Hardy predicted.
"What value to society does that serve?" he asked.
Mote, who as Washington's state climatologist travels the Northwest to warn of global warming's regional impacts, said he worried about the article being misused but decided to go ahead.
"Science is a process of getting to the truth," he said.
Even when the truth has unexpected twists like this: Models predict global warming will increase rainfall in Eastern Africa, which could actually be the thing that saves the "shining mountain's" snowy crown.
Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
By Sandi Doughton
Seattle Times science reporter
The shrinking snowcap atop Mount Kilimanjaro has become an icon of global warming.
Pictures of the African peak, which has lost 90 percent of its ice cover, were featured in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Greenpeace activists once held a satellite news conference on the summit to sway participants in an international climate conference.
But most scientists who study Kilimanjaro's glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano's poster-child status.
Yes, ice cover has shrunk by 90 percent, they say.
But no, the buildup of greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and factories is not to blame.
"Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change," said University of Washington climate scientist Philip Mote, co-author of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine.
Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends.
He hastens to add that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the fact that nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away. Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study.
Rising nearly four miles from the plains of eastern Tanzania, Kilimanjaro has seen its glaciers decline steadily for well over a century since long before humans began pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Mote points out.
Most of the world's glaciers didn't begin their precipitous declines until the 1970s, when measurable global warming first appeared.
Also, recent data from Kilimanjaro show temperatures on the 19,340-foot volcano never rise above freezing. So melting triggered by a warmer atmosphere can't be the reason the small summit ice sheet is retreating about 3 feet a year, said Georg Kaser, co-author of the new article and a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.
Most glaciers in temperate zones, like those on Mount Rainier, extend to lower elevations where their terminus is warmed to the melting point in summer.
On Kilimanjaro, ice loss seems to be driven by two factors: a lack of snowfall and sublimation, the same process that causes freezer burn by sucking moisture out of leftovers.
Researchers believe Kilimanjaro's glaciers formed about 11,000 years ago, when the region was undergoing a period of wet weather that allowed snow to accumulate. But even before the first Europeans reached the summit in 1889, the weather has been dry in Eastern Africa. There simply hasn't been enough snowfall to keep up with the loss of ice due to sublimation, Kaser explained.
Sublimation, caused by exposure to sunlight and dry air, occurs when ice essentially skips the melting step and evaporates.
Kaser, who climbs Kilimanjaro twice a year to gather data, says the ice topography shows little evidence that melting is anything but a minor force. Jagged spires and cliffs made of ice up to 120 feet tall are not softened around the edges.
Other researchers say melting may become more important if global temperatures continue to climb. Some have reported water gushing from boreholes and glacier margins. It's also possible climate change may play a role in droughts that have starved Kilimanjaro of snow, though that pattern was established before the planet began to warm significantly, Kaser said.
He was the first to point out the disconnect between global-warming rhetoric and scientific data from Kilimanjaro. His 2004 findings became fodder for conservative Web sites and global-warming skeptics many funded by the oil and coal industries who argued that all reports about melting glaciers are suspect.
The debate was so rancorous that a co-author of the 2004 study decided not to lend his name to the American Scientist article, which summarizes what researchers have learned about Kilimanjaro's complex ice dynamics.
Even though the mountain presents an interesting scientific puzzle, it's an anomaly compared to what's happening with other glaciers, said Douglas Hardy, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Massachusetts. The new article will be seized on by "global warming naysayers" and could give people the mistaken impression that it calls global warming into question, Hardy predicted.
"What value to society does that serve?" he asked.
Mote, who as Washington's state climatologist travels the Northwest to warn of global warming's regional impacts, said he worried about the article being misused but decided to go ahead.
"Science is a process of getting to the truth," he said.
Even when the truth has unexpected twists like this: Models predict global warming will increase rainfall in Eastern Africa, which could actually be the thing that saves the "shining mountain's" snowy crown.
Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Post by: wacki on June 12, 2007, 06:03:42 PM
Carebear, There are nutbags on both sides. But in all honesty that article shows that science works. Sometimes the truth is delayed but the information eventually gets out. Sometimes a lab can fake data but in the end they are always exposed as soon as someone decides to check their facts.
The best thing about satellites is that the data is open to the public and Exxon could hire people to analyze the material if they wanted to. There's no reason to kill a satellite that could end this debate once an for all. Well not unless you already know what the answer is and you just don't like it.
richyoung,
I could answer your questions but I just don't think you are worth the time it takes to respond. That is why I answer everyone else's questions and I'm ignoring yours. Wind has changed permanently in the climate change debate. The deniers are already being cut out of the negotiation tables. Their exile will only grow in breadth and intensity. The same will likely happen with political lobby groups. One of which could be a pro-RKBA group. This hatred for the scientific community and any fact that disagrees with your ideology that I see so often in internet boards is a double edged sword.
It's like the murder-gun link. It's entirely likely that murder rates are *slightly* higher with guns. Does that change my view on RKBA? No. Does that mean I have to lie about the facts? No.
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 12, 2007, 06:44:49 PM
Post by: wacki on June 12, 2007, 11:51:17 PM
Wacki, Just think UN Oil for Food. Then substitute Money for Credits within the same system. My question is "why believe these same players?" It is clear they want to have a solution that involves looting the productive class for the benefit of the nonproductive class, and with a large percentage for the arbitrators. Why is it not a good idea to question the problem that had research funded after the solution was proposed? Not exactly the scientific method. When the socialists are funding the research, you will get what you pay for.
Svente Arrhenius calculated global warming potential due to CO2 in 1896 and its put effect between 4-5.7 degrees Celsius.
James Hansen release his model which correctly predicted have a dozen events in 1988.
Keeling was worried about CO2 all the way back in 1954.
The AGW argument predates the UN by half a century.
The UN is a sham but the IPCC is a completely different entity. Your argument relies on the assumption that every scientist that endorsed the report is an American hating communist. It also relies on the assumption that every major scientific society in America is ran by American hating communists.
Basically over a 100,000 scientists would have to be apart of some scam. Do I really need to explain how unlikely this is? Common sense should tell you that a consensus this big and this strong might have some actual teeth to it. Besides it really doesn't take much work to realize that the fraudulent work almost always comes from the skeptic side. When someone like the industry funded skeptic Pat Michaels is forging graphs to "debunk" Hansen then alarm bells should be ringing in your head.
BTW, I really don't have 'blind faith' in the consensus. After reading thousands of scientific papers on the topic I shouldn't have to.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 13, 2007, 04:58:57 AM
Why would Exxon be lobbying against GW?
burning oil = CO2. Maybe that has something to do with why the've spent tens of millions lobbying against AGW.Quote
You seem to believe humans are causing global warming, but I haven't seen you putting out solutions of your own. If you don't have any, what is all the argument about?
I've posted solutions multiple times.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114700;topicseen#msg114700
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg115015;topicseen#msg115015
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114924;topicseen#msg114924
In fact you even responded to one of them saying:
"wacki, I completely disagree with your view of this issue, however, I have no problem with what you just mentioned as a solution. "
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg117860;topicseen#msg117860
Yup, this thread has gone totally off the deep end. Well, it was fun while it lasted.
In my defense, the "solution" was do nothing now and continue with research and development. Not really a solution regardless of my own word choice. I still don't have an issue with doing that.
I looked at the posts you mentioned. Alternative energy research is the only solution I saw that you mentioned. That stuff is already on going. Anything else?
Post by: MechAg94 on June 13, 2007, 05:02:47 AM
Quote
Huh? burning oil = CO2. Maybe that has something to do with why the've spent tens of millions lobbying against AGW.
Considering some of the crackpot schemes that have been proposed, If I were Exxon, I would be doing some heavy lobbying as well. I wouldn't care about research itself, just the potential for stupid laws.
Post by: richyoung on June 13, 2007, 05:54:09 AM
Svente Arrhenius calculated global warming potential due to CO2 in 1896 and its put effect between 4-5.7 degrees Celsius.
How about we hear from a moderhn scientist - like Marcel Leroux, professor of climatology at the University J. Moulin and director of the Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement.
"In his treatment of the relative contributions of various greenhouse gases, including the most important one, water vapor, which represents 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect, he calculates that human activities account for only 0.28 percent, which is less than exciting. Consequently, he argues that we must shake off our unfounded obsession with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and reconsider the problem of climate change in a different way, re-establishing the proper hierarchy of phenomena and giving the "water effect" the major climatic importance it deserves."
Quote
James Hansen release his model which correctly predicted have a dozen events in 1988.
Evin a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while - how does his model, when "tuned" to predict events in 1988, do now? How many events has it "predicted" in 2006? 2007? Must not be many, or you would be crowing about them...
Quote
Keeling was worried about CO2 all the way back in 1954.
Yes - climatology blows hot and cold, doesn't it? Pardon the pun....
Quote
The AGW argument predates the UN by half a century.
If by that you mean they couldn't predict the climate back then either, as evidenced by the alternating "ice age"/"harrowing heat up" theories, you are correct.
Quote
The UN is a sham but the IPCC is a completely different entity.
Oh, yes, lets do talk about the IPCC, shall we? From Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington). In his letter to the Wall Street Journal, on June 12, 1996, he wrote:
"[But] this [IPCC] report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. ... Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
- 'None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.'
- 'No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.'
- 'Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." Instead, the following text was inserted: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate." In spite of the way this view was imposed, and all the subsequent controversy, the idea was never retracted.
The third report brought a second scientific coup. It increased the value of the predicted rise in temperature, and clinched the argument with the hockey stick diagram -- more recently exposed as a hoax -- stating that temperatures in recent times are higher than they have been for a thousand years. Moreover, the spectrum of the consequences of the greenhouse effect was considerably broadened, to the extent that it included every meteorological phenomenon. "
Quote
Your argument relies on the assumption that every scientist that endorsed the report...
Which report? The one the scientists wrote, or the edited version the politicians released over their signatures without telling them?
Quote
... is an American hating communist. It also relies on the assumption that every major scientific society in America is ran by American hating communists.
Since you brouth it up - from Leroux again...
"The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -- that 'the Earth is warming up' -- is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized' lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"
Leroux also draws attention to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which article 6 on education and training, obliges participants to sensitize the public, at a national level, to climate change and its effects. States signatories to the Convention are thus bound to adopt the concept of "global warming" at the highest institutional level, to impose it as an incontrovertible dogma (i.e., a sort of state religion impervious to debate). In France, Leroux adds, the "servants" of the state -- and in their name, both audio-visual media and institutes -- feel bound to propagate the official dogma, just like a certain press agency in the East in its heyday; echoing the triumph of Lysenkoism, they shape public opinion in favor of the official theses.
Quote
Besides it really doesn't take much work to realize that the fraudulent work almost always comes from the skeptic AGW side. When someone like the industry funded skeptic Pat Michaels IPCC darling and data hoaxer Dr. Micheal Mann is forging graphs to "debunk" Hansen remove from the historical record the Midieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age then alarm bells should be ringing in your head.
I fixed it for you....
BTW, how do you explain the Holocene Climate Optimum that occured before 500 B.C., when temperatures where 4 degrees higher than they are NOW, well before any signifigant anthropogenic greenhouse gas generation? Or the Midieval Warm Period?
Post by: richyoung on June 13, 2007, 06:11:53 AM
Here's the thing that strikes me as utterly bizarre. Almost any other subject I can think of, if someone is proclaiming their superior knowledge when it runs against that which is received and understood (i.e established authorities), without any basis or relevant expertise they are cranks. Yet on climate change, every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert as long as he has one or two 'experts' he can cite.
... I'd posit that if anyone on this board were to actually really understand this literature, fully and completely, to be a climatological expert - they'd have 'won' this debate already. Whether you are right or wrong, if you are actually a full-on expert it's easy to blind with science. Start throwing terms like albedo out there and it's not long before most have to use a dictionary to even know what is being said...
People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock (I'm not just referring to this thread).
None of that really works. If you look back through this discussion I've tried to take that position - I want to know just who you are to hold the opinions that you do.
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank.
... I'd posit that if anyone on this board were to actually really understand this literature, fully and completely, to be a climatological expert - they'd have 'won' this debate already. Whether you are right or wrong, if you are actually a full-on expert it's easy to blind with science. Start throwing terms like albedo out there and it's not long before most have to use a dictionary to even know what is being said...
People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock (I'm not just referring to this thread).
None of that really works. If you look back through this discussion I've tried to take that position - I want to know just who you are to hold the opinions that you do.
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank.
Hmmm - strikes me as elitist snobbery - wonder what the National Academy of Science has to say about such? From "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research" , published in 1995:
"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."
"In fulfilling these responsibilities scientists must take the time to relate scientific knowledge to society in such a way that members of the public can make an informed decision about the relevance of research. Sometimes researchers reserve this right to themselves, considering non-experts unqualified to make such judgments. But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means."
This is a direct criticism of `scientism', a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.
Yet in the climate sciences, we have numerous examples of public criticism and concern being dismissed with gratuitous statistics and spurious appeals to academic authority.
Post by: wacki on June 13, 2007, 02:33:34 PM
Quote
Huh? burning oil = CO2. Maybe that has something to do with why the've spent tens of millions lobbying against AGW.
Considering some of the crackpot schemes that have been proposed, If I were Exxon, I would be doing some heavy lobbying as well. I wouldn't care about research itself, just the potential for stupid laws. This is a reasonable argument supporting think tanks for big corporations. Too bad the tactics followed by Exxon seem to center around discrediting the best and the brightest minds on the planet, ignoring the truth, and far less about attacking crackpot schemes like Kyoto.
Just look at the history of big tobacco.
Post by: wacki on June 13, 2007, 03:02:48 PM
Come wacki, you expect me to remember a post made 2 weeks ago?
Fair enough. Sorry for jumping on you. These threads tend to bring out some real retards and I apologize if I lost my patience with you.
Quote
In my defense, the "solution" was do nothing now and continue with research and development. Not really a solution regardless of my own word choice.
There is no instant fix. You could give up your car and turn off the lights and we would still have a CO2 problem.
Quote
I still don't have an issue with doing that.
Awesome. Glad to see some willingness to take some basic precautions.
Quote
I looked at the posts you mentioned. Alternative energy research is the only solution I saw that you mentioned. That stuff is already on going.
No it's not.
"We are not starting to address climate change with the technology we have in hand, and we are not accelerating our investment in energy technology research and development,"
-Professor Holdren, Harvard Professor, President of AAAS, director of WHRC
I could write pages about how the energy industry is being neglected. Most of the energy R&D going on right now (like corn ethanol) is a joke and is more about stalling real technology and political pork than solving problems. Energy is the largest industry on the planet yet they spend the least % wise on R&D of all the major industries. To give you an idea a 5 cent gas tax would be enough to start up another Apollo program. We sure as hell aren't seeing an Apollo energy program right now. The US used to be the leader of the world in physics and engineering. Walk into a major University's physics classroom now and you will see mostly Chinese students that barely speak English. The current state of science in America is a joke and we are losing our Ph.D's with a quickness.
Quote
Anything else?
This could be a long post. If I was president the first thing I'd do is tell Europe to shove Kyoto up their arse. Then I'd cut subsidies for the trucking Industry and invest in light and heavy rail. For every dollar I spend on the highway I'd spend at least the same amount on public transport and rail which is far more efficient. That will wean us off of oil and make us far more resistant to threats from Iran. Public transport used to be very popular in the US (in several major cities at least) until Standard oil, Firestone, etc engaged in the great streetcar scandal and killed off a popular transportation system. Cheap rail was replaced with expensive buses. The solar industry is very profitable but it's in gridlock for complicated business reasons. I'd spend federal money to build a massive polysilicon plant and break that gridlock and annihilate the silicon shortage. Then I'd let the solar industry take it's due course. Call it "jump starting capitalism" with a sacrificial lamb of one factory. It would be a one time deal. I'd cut the multi billion dollar corn ethanol subsidies. I'd start a military style physics and engineering program. Basically "we pay for your college but you give us 4 years of your life" just like the army does. Slap a 5 cent gas tax on gasoline which would pay for an Apollo style program to develop alternative energy so we can fight global warming and tell the middle east to "go screw yourself". I'd slap a small tax on every electrical device that doesn't have a vampire slayer. Neat little factoid: Your cellphone charger uses 24x more energy just sitting there then when it is actually charging your phone. It's cheaper for companies to make you burn electricity then to add a 5 cent switch that actually turns off the device. Vampire slayers could save the US billions per year and who knows how much CO2.
I'd create a panel of top scientists to allocate federal research funds and energy subsidies (which would be used sparingly). Once appointed they are there for life just like the supreme court. One requirement would be to force them to make their financial records open to the public. Not only will their tax records be made public but they would be barred from participating in certain kinds of financial activities. This would make them extremely resistant to bribery and political influences which would include members of Congress.
I'd create a series of X-prizes which would encourage private enterprise to compete with the federal labs in creating new technology for alternative energy.
Cafe standards worked very well in the past and they could easily be increased without putting too much strain on the auto industry. That would be some easy low hanging fruit as well.
I'd make heavily polluting companies clean up their own mess instead of using federal money to do it for them. There was a study once that added the costs of peace keeping in oil rich nations to each gallon of gasoline. The price of gas went up to $5 a gallon or something similar. There are a lot of hidden costs in dirty fuels that people don't know about.
That would be a start. In summary I'd concentrate on creating options for people and avoid the compulsive banning mentality of kommifornia.
Post by: wacki on June 13, 2007, 03:27:22 PM
Oh, yes, lets do talk about the IPCC, shall we? From Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington). In his letter to the Wall Street Journal, on June 12, 1996, he wrote:
lol I wrote 4 posts talking about how Frederick Seitz is batcrap insane. You replied to one of my posts:
"I'm not quoting Seitz. Relevance to thsi discussion?"
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg116130#msg116130
Now you source him?
The Nobel Laureate (more like Nobel thief) Kary Mullis thinks O.J. Simpson is innocent, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, practices telepathy, claims to have visited the astral plane... to give his girlfriend nitrous mouth to mouth, had sex with aliens and claims to have talked to glowing raccoons. Now that I've mentioned this crackpot would you like to quote him as an authority as well?
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/kary-mullis.html
please just stop posting. You aren't adding anything of value.
Post by: Ron on June 13, 2007, 03:50:13 PM
I kind of felt obligated, I started the whole thing and then haven't posted since.
You guys have done a great job without me! I don't think I could have added anything to the discussion that was worthwhile, lol.
Anywho continue on, didn't mean to interrupt, many of us are reading and learning. You guys have been pretty good about keeping it civil so it hasn't been painful to read as it has meandered around.
< climate change police with a temporary badge from El T>
Post by: richyoung on June 13, 2007, 05:44:46 PM
Oh, yes, lets do talk about the IPCC, shall we? From Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington). In his letter to the Wall Street Journal, on June 12, 1996, he wrote:
lol I wrote 4 posts talking about how Frederick Seitz is batcrap insane. You replied to one of my posts:
"I'm not quoting Seitz. Relevance to thsi discussion?"
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg116130#msg116130
Now you source him?
The relevant point, is this "batcrap insane" scientist was PART of the IPCC and he says the report was CHANGED> Was it or wasn't it? BTW, he is not the ONLY one claiming the report was altered.
Quote
please just stop posting. You aren't adding anything of value.
...and still no answer as to why the other planets are heating up too, or the black body temp of Earth, or where the Midieval Warm period is on Mann's hockey stick, or why holocene climate optimum was 4 degrees warmer than now, or....
Post by: wacki on June 13, 2007, 06:10:17 PM
The relevant point, is this "batcrap insane" scientist was PART of the IPCC
Anyone is allowed to be part of the IPCC review process.
Quote
and he says the report was CHANGED> Was it or wasn't it? BTW, he is not the ONLY one claiming the report was altered.
Fred Singer and Seitz both claim tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
"Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." -CEO of R.J. Reynolds
That was twenty years ago.
Quote
...and still no answer as to why the other planets are heating up too, or the black body temp of Earth, or where the Midieval Warm period is on Mann's hockey stick, or why holocene climate optimum was 4 degrees warmer than now, or....
Well for one thing I'm *mostly* ignoring you. One of the reasons why I'm ignoring you is because you've brought up the other planets argument multiple times in multiple threads and it's been answered multiple times in multiple threads by multiple people.
both badastronomy and realclimate have good writeups on this and links to both of those articles have been posted in this forum.
Post by: richyoung on June 14, 2007, 04:57:11 AM
The relevant point, is this "batcrap insane" scientist was PART of the IPCC
Anyone is allowed to be part of the IPCC review process.
THAT alone should be a warning sign to you - yet you keep citing it...
Quote
Quote
and he says the report was CHANGED> Was it or wasn't it? BTW, he is not the ONLY one claiming the report was altered.
Fred Singer and Seitz both claim tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
"Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." -CEO of R.J. Reynolds
That was twenty years ago.
WAS THE REPORT CHANGED? Its a simple question - why no answer? Lets us see what OTHERS have to say on the subject, BESIDES ol' "batcrap insane" Seitz...
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 11, 1996
...It is good therefore to have on hand an editorial from the international science journal Nature (June 13). Even though the writer openly takes the side of the IPCC in this controversy, impugning the motives of the industry group that first uncovered the alterations in the text, the editorial confirms that:
A crucial chapter of the IPCC's report was altered between the time of its formal acceptance and its printing.
Whether in accord with IPCC rules or notstill a hotly debated matter"there is some evidence that the revision process did result in a subtle shift . . . that . . . tended to favour arguments that aligned with the report's broad conclusions." (Critics of the IPCC would have used much stronger words.) The editorial further admits that "phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these conclusions have disappeared."
"IPCC officials," quoted (but not named) by Nature, claim that the reason for the revisions to the chapter was "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary' of the full report...." Their claim begs the obvious question: Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa?
The IPCC summary itself, a political document, is economical with the truth: It has problems with selective presentation of facts, not the least of which is that it totally ignores global temperature data gathered by weather satellites, which contradict the results of models used to predict a substantial future warming. It seems to me that IPCC officials, having failed to validate the current climate models, are now desperately grasping at straws to buttress their (rather feeble) conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate." In this crusade to provide a scientific cover for political action, they are misusing the work of respected scientists who never made extravagant claims about future warming."
So the Wall Street Journal and Nature, as well as Ol' "Batcrap", assert the REPORT WAS ALTERED! In fact, in Science magazine, 21 June, 1996, Dr. Benjamin Santer, convening lead author of Chapter 8, admits to making the actual changes between the final approval of the report in Madrid (in November 1995} and its printing (in May 1996), because "reviewers requested them". (
)So, are all THESE people "batcrap insane" too, or are you gonna deal with the fact that the report was altered?
Quote
...and still no answer as to why the other planets are heating up too, or the black body temp of Earth, or where the Midieval Warm period is on Mann's hockey stick, or why holocene climate optimum was 4 degrees warmer than now, or....
Quote
Well for one thing I'm *mostly* ignoring you.
Yep. Thats a lot easier than answering...
Quote
One of the reasons why I'm ignoring you is because you've brought up the other planets argument multiple times in multiple threads and it's been answered multiple times in multiple threads by multiple people.
No it hasn't. A spurious claim that "dust storms" (ignoring what is CAUSING the dust storms) are causing the heating on Mars, (ignoring the fact that increasing particulate content leads to COOLING every where else...) was made. NOTHING has been said about Jupiter, Pluto, or any of the OTHER bodies that are ALSO heating up, nor have you explained how greenhouse gases are going to cause Earth to EXCEED its theoretical maximum black-body absorption - which is an IMPOSSIBILITY....
Post by: Iain on June 14, 2007, 05:10:35 AM
Quote
But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means
This is the very definition of scientism. Scientism denies the possibility of human knowledge being obtained through anything other than the sciences, it proclaims the primacy of science over other fields. Usually though it means truths about life, thus those accused of scientism would be accused of denying the possibility of learning anything about life through religion or spirituality etc. I'm not sure how much religion or the humanities can tell us about global warming considering it is a scientific area of inquiry.
Saying that armchair experts should seek to establish credentials before outright dismissal of practicing experts is not scientism. To say so is to equate the validity of my views on relativity to Einstein's.
Informed public debate about science is one thing, a group of people on a forum parroting their favourite sceptic and dismissing all other possibilities because 'it's about power and control' or 'the science is wrong' is not informed debate - and for each of the 'global warming is happening on Mars' comments we have a person who is not paying attention to the full spectrum of the scientific debate.
Quote
People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock
This is not an elitist opinion, if a poster repeated interjected mocking comments about the potential presidency of Ron Paul and yet could not cite more than a handful of Paul's political positions their contribution should be, and would be, disregarded. Mocking comments about perceived 'chicken littleism' or 'junk science' when no qualifying statement is forthcoming should also be disregarded as the noise of children.Quote
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank.
Not a controversial statement if we were talking about relativity. There are those who do not accept it at all; for a non-physicist to listen to only those opinions and to cite them chapter and verse as the only valid opinion, would be an unsustainable position.We know full well that only certain opinions are being heard at all and are being repeated as the absolute final truth. This is why Singer, Lindzen, Ball and others are repeatedly cited, and their opponents are ignored. These are the 'spurious appeals' to academic authority, spurious because they are so highly selective of their authorities and yet unable to state why these authorities are the only valid authorities.
Post by: richyoung on June 14, 2007, 05:56:21 AM
Who is claiming conspiracy wacki? Examples have been posted in the last 8 pages. Bureaucrats always act for self preservation first. No conspiracy is required. You keep making really long posts without saying a great deal, twisting arguments to suit your partial responses.
..you left out ad hominem attacks on any scientist that doesn't toe the party line....
Post by: richyoung on June 14, 2007, 06:03:54 AM
We know full well that only certain opinions are being heard at all and are being repeated as the absolute final truth. This is why Singer, Lindzen, Ball and others are repeatedly cited, and their opponents are ignored.
I've cited many others, from many different countries - notably France and Russia.
Quote
These are the 'spurious appeals' to academic authority, spurious because they are so highly selective of their authorities and yet unable to state why these authorities are the only valid authorities.
When it comes to taking the "temperature" of the Earth, only satellite IR measurements have a chance of approximating the answer. Lindzen is the preeminent authority on such measurements. His word should carry great weight, as he designed the equipment in the first place.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 14, 2007, 10:34:05 AM
Quote
People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock
This is not an elitist opinion, if a poster repeated interjected mocking comments about the potential presidency of Ron Paul and yet could not cite more than a handful of Paul's political positions their contribution should be, and would be, disregarded. Mocking comments about perceived 'chicken littleism' or 'junk science' when no qualifying statement is forthcoming should also be disregarded as the noise of children.Post by: Iain on June 14, 2007, 01:05:46 PM
Post by: wacki on June 14, 2007, 06:53:45 PM
The relevant point, is this "batcrap insane" scientist was PART of the IPCC
Anyone is allowed to be part of the IPCC review process.
THAT alone should be a warning sign to you - yet you keep citing it...
Well, that is an intelligent statement.
There is a movement among peer review journals to open the books and allow anyone, be it layman or expert, to comment on a paper before it's published. Currently papers are sent to a handful of experts which read and then give feedback on/approve the paper. Just because someone comments on the paper doesn't mean the comments will be included in the paper.
The fact that you think public review somehow discredits a report shows how little you know about how the scientific world operates. The only disadvantage public review has over peer review is that public review requires the authors to read a heck of a lot more comments before publishing a final draft.
Post by: wacki on June 14, 2007, 07:00:08 PM
When it comes to taking the "temperature" of the Earth, only satellite IR measurements have a chance of approximating the answer. Lindzen is the preeminent authority on such measurements. His word should carry great weight, as he designed the equipment in the first place.
If you have proof that Lindzen disagrees with the IPCC's, NASA's, and the MetOffice's temperature readings I'd LOVE to see it.
Post by: richyoung on June 18, 2007, 05:08:41 AM
When it comes to taking the "temperature" of the Earth, only satellite IR measurements have a chance of approximating the answer. Lindzen is the preeminent authority on such measurements. His word should carry great weight, as he designed the equipment in the first place.
If you have proof that Lindzen disagrees with the IPCC's, NASA's, and the MetOffice's temperature readings I'd LOVE to see it.
Here's what the MAN HISSEF said to the Congress in 2001:
"...that CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm to 360ppm over the past century, and, that combined with increases in other greenhouse gases, this brings us about half way to the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 without any evidence of enhanced human misery.
that the increase in global mean temperature over the past century is about 1°F which is smaller than the normal interannual variability for smaller regions like North America and Europe, and comparable to the interannual variability for the globe. Which is to say that temperature is always changing, which is why it has proven so difficult to demonstrate human agency.
that doubling CO2 alone will only lead to about a 2°F increase in global mean temperature.
Predictions of greater warming due to doubling CO2 are based on positive feedbacks from poorly handled water vapor and clouds (the atmospheres main greenhouse substances) in current computer models. Such positive feedbacks have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations. Their existence, however, suggests a poorly designed earth which responds to perturbations by making things worse.
that warming is likely to be concentrated in winters and at night. This is an empirical result based on data from the past century. It represents what is on the whole a beneficial pattern.
that temperature increases observed thus far are less than what models have suggested should have occurred even if they were totally due to increasing greenhouse emissions. The invocation of very uncertain (and unmeasured) aerosol effects is frequently used to disguise this. Such an invocation makes it impossible to check models. Rather, one is reduced to the claim that it is possible that models are correct.
that claims that man has contributed any of the observed warming (ie attribution) are based on the assumption that models correctly predict natural variability. Such claims, therefore, do not constitute independent verifications of models. Note that natural variability does not require any external forcing natural or anthropogenic.
that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations all of which are well documented in the data, and important contributors to natural variability.
that major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were
characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100's to thousands of years.
that increases in temperature on the order of 1°F are not catastrophic and may be beneficial."
..about agreeing with the IPCC, same source:
"...The draft of the Policymakers Summary was significantly modified at Shanghai. The IPCC, in response to the fact that the Policymakers Summary was not prepared by participating scientists, claimed that the draft of the Summary was prepared by a (selected) subset of the 14 coordinating lead authors. However, the final version of the summary differed significantly from the draft. For example the draft concluded the following concerning attribution:
"From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."
The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes instead:
"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In point of fact, there may not have been any significant warming in the last 60 years. Moreover, such warming as may have occurred was associated with jumps that are inconsistent with
greenhouse warming."
There ya go.
Post by: richyoung on June 18, 2007, 05:28:07 AM
"Last fall, a panel of scientists convened by the United Nations to advise the world's governments concluded for the first time that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are probably responsible, at least in part, for a changing global climate. The panel also predicted that if emissions of the gases are not reduced, the average global temperature will increase by 1.8 degrees to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit -- with a best estimate of 3.6 degrees -- by the year 2100. The predicted warming, according to the United Nations panel, would be accompanied by widespread climatic disruption.
Bunk, says Dr. Lindzen. He says the conclusions are based on computerized models of the climate system so flawed as to be meaningless. Everyone recognizes that the models are imperfect, but Dr. Lindzen goes much farther. "I do not accept the model results as evidence," he says, because trusting them "is like trusting a ouija board." Furthermore, he argues, the physics of the atmosphere permit only a minor and untroubling warming despite the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "
New York Times
Monday, June 18, 2007
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 18, 2007, 08:40:31 AM
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613
Quote
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.
And it's not something that he does regularly.
"I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.
And it's not something that he does regularly.
"I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Post by: wacki on June 18, 2007, 04:22:40 PM
It would be nice if he supplied a quantitative analysis of his theory. I doubt we will see a full writeup from him. And until he supports his hypothesis with testable evidence then he is merely spouting an opinion and not practicing science. This argument has been made before by the usual suspects in the skeptic world and nobody has come forth with any supporting evidence.
I will say I haven't seen a proper retort of this. I've heard people I know and trust claim it's nonsense but I haven't seen the actual data conflicting Bryson's hypothesis. Now that someone with a shred of actual credibility is making this argument I'm sure that will change shortly.
Given that he's 87 years old this reminds me of a couple of quotes:
"old ideas die with old professors"- Planck (i think)
We will see if this quote applies to this situation as well.
Post by: wacki on June 19, 2007, 01:37:48 AM
Here's what the MAN HISSEF said to the Congress in 2001:
.....
that temperature increases observed thus far are less than what models have suggested should have occurred even if they were totally due to increasing greenhouse emissions.
This is not true. The models are dead on accurate and the only reason why he could get away with this back then is that there were problems with the satellites. The problems have been fixed and the satellites now match the land and sea records as well as the models. I highly doubt he still holds this position.
Quote
that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous.
This is also no longer the case. Once DO events were discovered the models worked fine for paleoclimate as well.
Quote
In point of fact, there may not have been any significant warming in the last 60 years. Moreover, such warming as may have occurred was associated with jumps that are inconsistent with
greenhouse warming."
There ya go.
Again the only reason why he could say this is because the satellites were having problem and showing odd readings.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Those problems have been fixed.
The real question is whether or not he still repeats any of these arguments. I highly doubt he does.
This article is 6 years old and just about everything he's said here he's changed his mind on due to overwhelming evidence showing that he's wrong.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 19, 2007, 03:44:56 AM
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change
hmmm more consensus
wacki "the models are dead on accurate"
really?! what makes you imagine that? and i use imagine with cause
come on down to dc meet some folks who worked on and developed those models for 30 plus years they are less sure of your "dead on" dream. but hey what do they know.
Post by: wacki on June 19, 2007, 05:12:46 AM
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
This is so easily debunked all you need to do is look at a graph:
Quote
wacki "the models are dead on accurate"
really?! what makes you imagine that? and i use imagine with cause
come on down to dc meet some folks who worked on and developed those models for 30 plus years they are less sure of your "dead on" dream. but hey what do they know.
really?! what makes you imagine that? and i use imagine with cause
come on down to dc meet some folks who worked on and developed those models for 30 plus years they are less sure of your "dead on" dream. but hey what do they know.
DC? Hansen is in NY. You don't have to take my word on the models accuracy check the facts yourself:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
These predictions were made in 1988
Post by: richyoung on June 19, 2007, 05:24:49 AM
Here's what the MAN HISSEF said to the Congress in 2001:
.....
that temperature increases observed thus far are less than what models have suggested should have occurred even if they were totally due to increasing greenhouse emissions.
This is not true. The models are dead on accurate and the only reason why he could get away with this back then is that there were problems with the satellites. The problems have been fixed and the satellites now match the land and sea records as well as the models. I highly doubt he still holds this position.
A lot of the "land records" were taken from worn-out, uncalibrated automated stations. As for the problems being "fixed", what you mean is, they were "corrected" to match the climate models - a degree of "correction both Spencer and Lindzen assert is way to high. You left that out...and, BTW, as you are so fond of saying, "source, please?"
Quote
Quote
that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous.
This is also no longer the case. Once DO events were discovered the models worked fine for paleoclimate as well.
Puh-leaze. They don;t even correctly handle the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Midieval warm perios, or the Little Ice Age, - they don;t even handle El nino and La nina years right.
Quote
Quote
In point of fact, there may not have been any significant warming in the last 60 years. Moreover, such warming as may have occurred was associated with jumps that are inconsistent with
greenhouse warming."
There ya go.
greenhouse warming."
There ya go.
Again the only reason why he could say this is because the satellites were having problem and showing odd readings.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Those problems have been fixed.
You asked for proof he disagreed. BTW here's Christy and Spencer's response to the "fix":
A very useful overview of the research of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville entitled Satellite Temperature Data was prepared for the Washington Roundtable On Science and Public Policy on April 17, 2006 .
Regardless of your perspective on the climate change issue, it provides an insight and informative summary of their research conclusions. Their talk stated
Today we are going to show you some of the latest research that has just been published, some that will be published soon and some that hasnt been published yet, but which gives you an idea where this information is going.
Among their conclusions are:
Surface warming has been observed in many regions of the world (not all) in the past century In some of these locations, the warming is more consistent with land-use change, rather than our understanding of greenhouse gas forcing
Upper air warming has likely been modest, especially in the tropics Current UAH versions of the data are consistent with balloon-station data while other versions of the satellite data are not.
Post by: richyoung on June 19, 2007, 05:33:33 AM
These predictions were made in 1988
Those "predictions" don;t look so good for years 1973 - 1979, 1989, 1991 - 1994, and 1998. Thats 12 years off. Since the graph was made in 1988, thats 6 years that the so-called "model" not only got thte temp wrong, it got the * TREND * wrong - out of 18. Thats a one-third total failure rate - is this the "accurate" model you speak of? - if so, I hate to see what you call an inaccurate one....
Post by: richyoung on June 19, 2007, 05:39:11 AM
Quote
by Dr. John R. Christy and Roy Spencer
April 17, 2006
In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface. In August 2005, three papers appeared in Science to challenge their findings. Mears & Wentzs paper in particular addressed what they considered a large source of uncertainty in Christy and Spencers satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric temperature trends. Spencer and Christy have implemented new corrections to their method; as a result their temperature trends have risen slightly from +.09 to +.12 deg. C/Decade still below the RSS estimate of +.19 deg. C/Decade as of mid-2005.
April 17, 2006
In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface. In August 2005, three papers appeared in Science to challenge their findings. Mears & Wentzs paper in particular addressed what they considered a large source of uncertainty in Christy and Spencers satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric temperature trends. Spencer and Christy have implemented new corrections to their method; as a result their temperature trends have risen slightly from +.09 to +.12 deg. C/Decade still below the RSS estimate of +.19 deg. C/Decade as of mid-2005.
Wow. A WHOLE three hundreths of s degree correction. Not exactly the harbinger of doom, eh Wacki?
Post by: Paddy on June 19, 2007, 11:08:46 AM
How the hell do these people think the great ice ages of the past ended? Duh. Must have been 'global warming', long before humans had even invented so much as a spear, let alone a highly industrialized 'greenhouse gas' emitting civilization. It is self centered arrogance to the max to think that we can create, or stop, 'global warming'.
Post by: wacki on June 19, 2007, 04:04:53 PM
These predictions were made in 1988
Those "predictions" don;t look so good for years 1973 - 1979, 1989, 1991 - 1994, and 1998. Thats 12 years off. Since the graph was made in 1988, thats 6 years that the so-called "model" not only got thte temp wrong, it got the * TREND * wrong - out of 18. Thats a one-third total failure rate - is this the "accurate" model you speak of? - if so, I hate to see what you call an inaccurate one....
The 1991-94 cooling was caused by mount pinatubo.
1998 was El Nino and 1989 is dead on accurate so I assume you made a typo.
What you are talking about is weather or short term conditions. Climate models are about long term trends and multi-year averages. This is the basic definition of climate and weather. The slope of the temperature trend in the model is almost exactly what it is in real life. Both temperature trends are going up and both are increasing at the same rate. You can cherry pick any year you want but that fact will remain the same.
Post by: richyoung on June 20, 2007, 04:00:40 AM
These predictions were made in 1988
Those "predictions" don;t look so good for years 1973 - 1979, 1989, 1991 - 1994, and 1998. Thats 12 years off. Since the graph was made in 1988, thats 6 years that the so-called "model" not only got thte temp wrong, it got the * TREND * wrong - out of 18. Thats a one-third total failure rate - is this the "accurate" model you speak of? - if so, I hate to see what you call an inaccurate one....
The 1991-94 cooling was caused by mount pinatubo.
Further proof the so-called "models' - aren't.
Quote
1998 was El Nino...
So...your models can model climate hundreds of years in the future - but can't handle an El Nino?
Quote
and 1989 is dead on accurate so I assume you made a typo.
You have a funny definition of "dead accurate" - all three "scenarios" show RISING temperatures when temps actually FELL - and 2 out of the 3 are off by 0.2 degrees. All three got the TREND wrong, and 2 out of 3 got the temp wrong. If that meats YOUR definition of "dead accurate", I can see why YOU are impressed - the rest of us? Not so much...
Quote
What you are talking about is weather or short term conditions. Climate models are about long term trends and multi-year averages.
Unless there is vulcanism. Or El Nino. Or sunspots. Or.....
Quote
This is the basic definition of climate and weather. The slope of the temperature trend in the model is almost exactly what it is in real life.
No - its not. In many years, the trend is even in the wrong direction.
Quote
Both temperature trends are going up and both are increasing at the same rate.
Yeah. That tends to happen when recovering from something like the Little Ice Age...
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2007, 04:20:51 AM
Post by: wacki on June 20, 2007, 04:53:46 AM
Let's see what that trend looks like when put in terms of % change of Absolute temperature instead of delta T.
I hope you realize that a 5 degree cooling means an ice age. A 5 degree warming means florida and several countries get swallowed by the sea. % change of Kelvin isn't going to be very meaningful to the average person when the bottom half of the fraction is > 300.
Post by: wacki on June 20, 2007, 05:00:12 AM
First you claimed 1800's technology being better than post 1956 technology in directly measuring CO2 levels. Now you fail to understand the difference between short term noise and long term trends. I have a really difficult time believing any person that is able to figure out how to type on a keyboard is unable to understand these basic concepts. If you truly are having difficulty understanding these two basic concepts then I feel very sorry for you but as I said before I doubt that is the case. Goodbye troll.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2007, 07:13:50 AM
Post by: richyoung on June 20, 2007, 07:31:06 AM
Rich,
First you claimed 1800's technology being better than post 1956 technology in directly measuring CO2 levels.
First you claimed 1800's technology being better than post 1956 technology in directly measuring CO2 levels.
No - I did not.
Quote
Now you fail to understand the difference between short term noise and long term trends. I have a really difficult time believing any person that is able to figure out how to type on a keyboard is unable to understand these basic concepts. If you truly are having difficulty understanding these two basic concepts then I feel very sorry for you but as I said before I doubt that is the case.
Goodbyetroll.
The Troll
Goodbye
The Troll
...fixed it for you....
Post by: richyoung on June 20, 2007, 07:34:59 AM
Let's see what that trend looks like when put in terms of % change of Absolute temperature instead of delta T.
I hope you realize that a 5 degree cooling means an ice age.
I hope you realize we've had ice ages before - and they ENDED - all WITHOUT evil Man burining fossil fuels...
Quote
A 5 degree warming means florida and several countries get swallowed by the sea.
It would also mean the entire subdiscipline of thermodynamics involved with "black body" radiation would also suddenly have been proven invalid, but I notice you keep ducking THAT "Inconvenient Truth"...
Post by: wacki on June 20, 2007, 02:57:54 PM
For someone with the screen name of "wacki", you take things way too seriously.
Heh, well this has been a long and tiring thread. And when somebody claims that readings taken with this device which dates back to at least 1811 and probably into the 1700's:
is more accurate than readings from this device (ULTRAMAT):
I start to really wonder about what their intentions are.
Then I show him this graph:
The black dots are from a device that dates back to at least 1801. The green is the ice cores and the red line is the state of the art ULTRAMAT. It doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to figure which one of those three measuring devices is inconsistent with the other two when it comes to year to year variance. I mean two of those devices change by about 1 part per million and the other device has swings that are 200x larger. It could not be more obvious. And this is even more the case when measurements taken with the ULTRAMAT is extremely consistent even when 8 different stations are compared:
They are extremely consistent. Measurements with the 1800's device/techniques couldn't even do that on the same day from the exact same location. I mean not even the people back then trusted the device. For a variety of technical reasons they literally threw out the exact same measurements that Jaworowski cites. That is why they circled some of the black dots because that was their best guess. Those circles happen to line up with the ice core readings. This was at a time when nobody cared about global warming so politics was definitely not a factor.
This is pretty basic stuff and if Rich can't admit Jaworowski is full of crap then there really isn't a point in me talking to him anymore. There is either a serious honesty or a serious brainpower problem going on here. And now he's arguing that there's no such thing as short term noise in a long term trend. I'm not upset. It's just lunacy and I'm wasting my time talking to him. I'm happy to teach but I might as well be debating 2+2 = 4. I have better things to do with my time.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2007, 04:27:59 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2007, 04:28:59 PM
This was interesting reading.
Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.
They call this a consensus?
Dire forecasts aren't new
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.
Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.
My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.
Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.
Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.
In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.
Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.
However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.
Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.
In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."
R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
© National Post 2007
Post by: wacki on June 20, 2007, 04:41:57 PM
wacki, we use ultramats at work in some applications. They have the potential to be really accurate. However, they really are only as accurate as the technicians maintaining them and gases used to calibrate them. Lots of different factors can throw them off such as ambient temperature and such. Errors of 5% to 15% are allowable depending on the application. It's another one of those conditions that you have to assume to be true and make sure results are reproducible.
In the very last post I made I posted this graph:
That's a line graph of 8 different stations. Goto scripps and check the graph yourself by downloading the raw data. Are you really going to tell me that those incredibly smooth and incredibly similar lines are just chance?
BTW, Scripps disagrees with you about the 5-15% they say they are accurate to 1ppm. I'd love to see which applications allow 5-15% error.
Post by: richyoung on June 20, 2007, 06:00:27 PM
Rich,
First you claimed 1800's technology being better than post 1956 technology in directly measuring CO2 levels.
First you claimed 1800's technology being better than post 1956 technology in directly measuring CO2 levels.
Since you could not be bothered to go back 5 pages, lets refresh teh readers with what I * ACTUALLY * said:
"Depends on what you are using them for, what you are using them on. I can certainly envision circumstances where the more sophisticated equipment can be spoofed or fooled. "
Quote
Now you fail to understand the difference between short term noise and long term trends.
That is exactly the point I'm trying to make - you don;t have enough data for a "long term ttrend", and the amound of heating detected is only slightly above the inherent "noise" of the measuring systems.
Post by: richyoung on June 20, 2007, 06:11:32 PM
Quote
Quote
Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing". In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice. IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample. Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old. Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing". In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice. IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample. Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old. Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?
If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores. The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.
Uh,...WRONG! The migration of CO2 would tend to REDUCE the amount in higher areas and INCREASE it in lower areas - until, millions of years later, the whole mass would have an almost constant level of CO2, except in the most recent layers - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS!
Post by: MechAg94 on June 21, 2007, 04:26:39 AM
wacki, we use ultramats at work in some applications. They have the potential to be really accurate. However, they really are only as accurate as the technicians maintaining them and gases used to calibrate them. Lots of different factors can throw them off such as ambient temperature and such. Errors of 5% to 15% are allowable depending on the application. It's another one of those conditions that you have to assume to be true and make sure results are reproducible.
In the very last post I made I posted this graph:
That's a line graph of 8 different stations. Goto scripps and check the graph yourself by downloading the raw data. Are you really going to tell me that those incredibly smooth and incredibly similar lines are just chance?
BTW, Scripps disagrees with you about the 5-15% they say they are accurate to 1ppm. I'd love to see which applications allow 5-15% error.
The 15% error limit is for the NOx and CO emissions analyzers we use for stack emissions monitoring. 15% is the magic number when we use for 3rd party accuracy testing. It really is not as bad as it sounds when you think about it. That analyzer is mounted in a sealed cabinet outside. It has its own little cabinet air conditioner to keep the ambient conditions in the cabinet as steady as possible and it also helps purge out any flammable gases that might collect.
Post by: wacki on June 21, 2007, 04:50:49 AM
wacki, smooth lines on a graph don't say a thing about accuracy of measuring equipment. It only questions how the data was processed or normalized before it was graphed. Assuming that data is good, it appears that all the measuring stations agree, however, you are looking multiple years with supposedly a very large number of data points, taken with different analyzers also I bet. I suspect that a some "noise" was filtered out of those lines or only averages were graphed.
From Scripps
These are raw flask data and contain a lot of basic information..... Questionable data are flagged with asterisks. ....... UCO2: Unflagged carbon dioxide data; this column repeats CO2, but without asterisks, for ease in plotting the data.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/alt_wk_co2.txt
make your own graphs from raw unfiltered data if you wish
Now you can stop "suspecting" and start knowing.
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 21, 2007, 07:44:58 AM
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Quote
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 21, 2007, 01:46:21 PM
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
Quote
Statistics needed
The Deniers -- Part I
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.
The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.
In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).
Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.
Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.
Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.
"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.
Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.
Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."
In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.
One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.
While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.
The Deniers -- Part I
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.
The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.
In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).
Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.
Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.
Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.
"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.
Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.
Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."
In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.
One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.
While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.
Post by: wacki on June 21, 2007, 04:31:36 PM
Quote
Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.
While this is true and Mann et. al did make a small mistake in their math one question you need to ask is whether or not it makes a discernible difference in the final results. Wegman was highly critical of Mann but never answered this specific question. Once you make the correction Wegman so forcefully suggests you get pretty much the exact same graph.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328
Both the data and the source code are freely available through the AGU so you can check it yourself. BTW Wegman has strong ties to the tobacco industry and oil barons. Although you need to understand 200 level linear algebra Wegman's argument is pretty easy to debunk.
Post by: wacki on June 21, 2007, 04:49:18 PM
It may be Global Cooling we should worry about:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Quote
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
I saw this on the news today and I must say this is actually pretty interesting. There are some arguments in here that I haven't heard before which is a nice change of pace from the vast majority of skeptics. The cosmic ray theory has been addressed ad nauseum via realclimate and countless other blogs. That topic actually takes some chemistry and physics background to understand though. This guy has given talks with industry hit men like "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Singer and Tim Ball which is not exactly in the best interest for any reputable scientist to do. Singer and Ball are at the bottom of the barrel. Still, I can't fault any layman for taking this man seriously. I'm short on time but I will revisit this article at a later date. I'd like to know how much of this has made it through peer review.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 21, 2007, 06:17:21 PM
Post by: mountainclmbr on June 21, 2007, 06:59:19 PM
I don't expect to convert those whose religious faith is GW. I just don't want to be dragged down with them. If your salvation is Stalin or beheadding on top of a Mayan pyramid, may you reach your peer reviewed dreams. Just leave me out of it.
Post by: wacki on June 22, 2007, 05:23:39 AM
I am not sure I would call myself a layman. I am a systems engineer involved in satellite system development including some of the DMSP satellite systems and the much delayed NPOESS system. If you believe that CO2 disperses through the atmosphere with time, and if you believe that the sun is hot, therefore producing infrared (IR) radiation where the two narrow CO2 absorption lines occur, why do the satellite imagry of upper atmosphere temperatures not show increases in temperature?
Because that's not how greenhouse gases work. The greenhouse effect cools the stratosphere (very high atmosphere) and warms the troposphere (low atmosphere). This was predicted by the models and has been seen in observations.
Quote
The surface temperatures vary greatly due to things such as ocean current fluctuation (like el nino), storm cycles, cloud layers, volcanic dust, visable/UV irradiance from the sun etc.
True but there is a pattern even if you can't see one. Polar amplification (heating at the north pole now and south pole later) is a smoking gun of greenhouse warming. That was predicted and it has been observed.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
There are plenty of other patterns but I don't have time to go into those right now.
Quote
The impression that IR comprises a major part of solar irradiation is a mistake from viewing log charts of solar irradiance by non-math people.
The greenhouse effect is INDEPENDENT of how much IR radiation the sun is emitting. See this steel rod:
That nice pretty cherry red glow is sending off a lot of thermal radiation also known as infrared radiation. (as well as other spectrums of light obviously) That is because the metal rod is hot. Anything above zero degrees Kelvin emits IR. You could block all IR irradiance from the sun and the greenhouse effect would still work. The earth absorbs lots of different colors of light but emits them all back into space via infra-red.
see wikipedia for more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Quote
If you displayed greenhouse gas absorption frequencies linearly, you probably could not see the CO2 IR absorption lines. It is like saying flea farts will destroy us, but hurricane winds are negligable.
Well you are an engineer so you should have taken freshman/sophmore physics and a reasonable amount of math. Calculate the watts per square meter and then convert that to degrees C. You can figure out how much that flea fart really changes things. I'll post a paper from 1896 that shows how to do this later. Short on time.
Quote
I don't expect to convert those whose religious faith is GW. I just don't want to be dragged down with them. If your salvation is Stalin or beheadding on top of a Mayan pyramid, may you reach your peer reviewed dreams. Just leave me out of it.
I have strong libertarian/conservative leanings. By talking about global warming I'm agreeing with the liberal left and criticizing people I tend to associate with most. I hope you can separate the emotional political ideology from the science.
Post by: richyoung on June 22, 2007, 06:04:04 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 22, 2007, 10:44:41 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 30, 2007, 06:31:58 PM
oops! where's al now?
Post by: wacki on July 28, 2007, 08:37:30 AM
I am SO GLAD you brought up thermodynamics wacki - how about you tell us what the Earth's theoretical "black body" temp calculates out, and the delta between that and the CURRENT Earth temp. You DO agree that the "black body" temp is the absolute MAXIMUM temp, right?
No I don't. Nowhere near it. Go ahead and try to apply the "black body" calculations to venus and see what you get back. Good luck getting anywhere near the right answer. You can use this spectral calculator and even data from experimental databases to see that the greenhouse effect doesn't stop:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php
Put the CO2 at 380 ppm and look at the 620 -720 cm-1 wavelengths and play with the numbers. Might write more later.
Also, the H2O argument is completely bogus because when you go high enough the air gets really cold (for a while) and water vapor levels drop to almost nothing while CO2 levels remain. This is why climate models are "multi-layered". Just like layers of clothing different layers of the atmosphere insulate differently.
Post by: mountainclmbr on July 30, 2007, 09:11:25 AM
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1780
Quote
Global Warming, Not
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007
An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation.
Satellite and projected data do not agree, claimed Murray. Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful. Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist, the economics of global warming should be our main concern, Murray pointed out. Even if Kyoto is correctly implemented to the nth degree, results by 2050 would be totally inadequate.
Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited. Murray continued with some propositions:
What do we do? We need to tackle the effects (meaning poverty, health issues) of Global Warming directly. Kyoto, if fully executed, will be barely measurable, so bypass this. Invest in other problems. Put Kyoto funding towards poverty. Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.
Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007
An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation.
Satellite and projected data do not agree, claimed Murray. Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful. Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist, the economics of global warming should be our main concern, Murray pointed out. Even if Kyoto is correctly implemented to the nth degree, results by 2050 would be totally inadequate.
Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited. Murray continued with some propositions:
What do we do? We need to tackle the effects (meaning poverty, health issues) of Global Warming directly. Kyoto, if fully executed, will be barely measurable, so bypass this. Invest in other problems. Put Kyoto funding towards poverty. Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.
Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "Socialism, the ends justify the means."
Post by: mountainclmbr on August 03, 2007, 02:16:28 PM
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38
Quote
030807 Marc Moranos Round-up August 3, 2007
3 Significant New Studies on Climate
(Mark August 3, 2007 as key date in climate science)
Society of Environmental Journalists called Global Warming Propaganda Factory
Excerpt: In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity. The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest? The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html
STUDY # 1:
"Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2" http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801
(Translation)
Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2
STUDY # 2:
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle
Excerpt: To accurately assess the effects of human-induced climate change, scientists must be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes. The existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, but its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites. To assess how this less-controversial oscillatory forcing affects climate on Earth, Camp and Tung compare surface temperature measurements across the globe between years of solar maximum (with higher heat output) and years of solar minimum. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Title: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm
STUDY # 3:
New Study: Global warming over last century linked to natural causes
(Below excerpt clarifies studys conclusion)
Excerpts: It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.L13705 TSONIS ET AL.: MECHANISM FOR MAJOR CLIMATE SHIFTS L13705 4 of 5 in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm
Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl reacts to new climate change study linking temps to natural causes (Study # 3 above)
Excerpt: If you are interested in their predictions, a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so and by cooling in the rest of the 21st century. 2100 is seen as more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than 2005. While they admit the possibility that their curves should be superimposed with contributions such as the enhanced greenhouse effect, they have a very different explanation for the climate shift in the late 1970s that has nothing to do with aerosols or greenhouse gases.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/mechanism-for-major-climate-shifts.html
UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Debunks recent No Solar-Climate Link Study (Corbyn heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action)
Excerpt: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwoods refutation of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the worlds temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the suns activity. So what does he do? He finds that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html
(Links to discussion blog with Corbyns comments reprinted)
More No Solar-climate link debunking
Excerpt: Solar activity is higher than it has been for at least 1000 years. IPCC AR4 rates the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as low, other solar factors have a LOSU of very low. The emphasis is always on irradiance rather than eruptivity, which I believe is much more important. Small solar changes seem to have a much larger influence on climate than expected, suggesting an unknown amplification mechanism. Global mean surface temperatures have leveled off since the 1998 El Nino, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the past 5 years according to the ARGO network. Solar cycle length, sunspots, irradiance, are general indicators of solar activity. Nir Shaviv sees no reason why the length of the solar cycle should be related to solar activity it could be a coincidence, and it is largely a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere. That said, the correlation between solar cycle length and a long mean surface temperature series has also been <http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/abstract196.html>observed at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002198.html
3 Significant New Studies on Climate
(Mark August 3, 2007 as key date in climate science)
Society of Environmental Journalists called Global Warming Propaganda Factory
Excerpt: In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity. The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest? The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html
STUDY # 1:
"Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2" http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801
(Translation)
Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2
STUDY # 2:
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle
Excerpt: To accurately assess the effects of human-induced climate change, scientists must be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes. The existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, but its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites. To assess how this less-controversial oscillatory forcing affects climate on Earth, Camp and Tung compare surface temperature measurements across the globe between years of solar maximum (with higher heat output) and years of solar minimum. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Title: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm
STUDY # 3:
New Study: Global warming over last century linked to natural causes
(Below excerpt clarifies studys conclusion)
Excerpts: It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.L13705 TSONIS ET AL.: MECHANISM FOR MAJOR CLIMATE SHIFTS L13705 4 of 5 in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm
Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl reacts to new climate change study linking temps to natural causes (Study # 3 above)
Excerpt: If you are interested in their predictions, a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so and by cooling in the rest of the 21st century. 2100 is seen as more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than 2005. While they admit the possibility that their curves should be superimposed with contributions such as the enhanced greenhouse effect, they have a very different explanation for the climate shift in the late 1970s that has nothing to do with aerosols or greenhouse gases.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/mechanism-for-major-climate-shifts.html
UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Debunks recent No Solar-Climate Link Study (Corbyn heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action)
Excerpt: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwoods refutation of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the worlds temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the suns activity. So what does he do? He finds that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html
(Links to discussion blog with Corbyns comments reprinted)
More No Solar-climate link debunking
Excerpt: Solar activity is higher than it has been for at least 1000 years. IPCC AR4 rates the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as low, other solar factors have a LOSU of very low. The emphasis is always on irradiance rather than eruptivity, which I believe is much more important. Small solar changes seem to have a much larger influence on climate than expected, suggesting an unknown amplification mechanism. Global mean surface temperatures have leveled off since the 1998 El Nino, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the past 5 years according to the ARGO network. Solar cycle length, sunspots, irradiance, are general indicators of solar activity. Nir Shaviv sees no reason why the length of the solar cycle should be related to solar activity it could be a coincidence, and it is largely a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere. That said, the correlation between solar cycle length and a long mean surface temperature series has also been <http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/abstract196.html>observed at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002198.html
Post by: wacki on August 05, 2007, 12:31:23 PM
http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1780
Quote
Global Warming, Not
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007
An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007
An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.
It is true that tropical areas haven't warmed as much but it's plain false that they haven't warmed at all. As for Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain well that is called polar amplification. Polar amplification is a smoking gun of global warming so this argument is pure deception and not a refutation of the global warming theory. Here we have 1 falsehood and 1 deception tactic.
Quote
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation.
They are an oil & tobacco funded think tank that has a long history of screwing up highschool level science & math and denying some really basic science such as whether or not CFC's float in the air. CEI is a joke.
Quote
Satellite and projected data do not agree, claimed Murray.
This is true when satellite data wasn't adjusted for a degrading orbit. Once the falling satellite heights were adjusted for everything lined up perfectly. This argument was settled in August 2005. This information is extremely difficult to miss as information about this is not only highly published/referenced but talked about on documentation pages of temperature graphs which include this adjustment. He had to basically ignore just about every graph used in any major paper or scientific institutions website. So his argument is a portrayal of ignorance, deception or just a plain lie. You be the judge.
Quote
Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful. Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist,
This argument is funny since they line up with the satellites. Also there are thousands if not tens of thousands of surface devices but only a few satellites. Surface readings are far more extensive. So their argument seems to be wrong on both counts.
Quote
Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited. Murray continued with some propositions:
Well global warming is supposed to hit the poor the worst so......
Quote
Quote
Put Kyoto funding towards poverty. Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.
Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "Socialism, the ends justify the means."
Don't you mean "Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "I am just an intern fronting for big oil & coal""?
I agree with their opinion on Kyoto but all of their science based arguments are either false or an obvious deception.
Post by: wacki on August 05, 2007, 01:34:13 PM
Three more studies find little CO2 warming effect and more bad weather predicted for UK.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38
Um... the AGU study (STUDY # 2:) on solar does not conflict with the overall conclusions of the IPCC. So listing it there is kind of odd.
Study #1 apparently hasn't been published yet so I can't comment. But I will say that paragraph disagrees with the conclusions and official statements of every major scientific society in Belgium. Also, there is a long history of people lying about the contents of the IPCC in the WSJ and Exxon is offering $10,000 for each global warming skeptic so unless we have access to the paper I would treat this paragraph with a grain of salt.
Study #3 is something I'm going to have to review later as I don't have access to the paper unless I'm at work and the abstract just talks about "theory of synchronized chaos". As of right now I have no idea if this agrees with or disagrees with the IPCC.
The blog posts:
The Motl has a history of deception. His post is only 2 days old and covers study #3. I'd keep an eye out on Deltoid, rabett run and realclimate for rebuttals. Since this "chaos" argument seems to be getting some attention one of the mainstream scientific blogs will surely address it within a week or two.
The two solar blog posts don't seem worth really discussing. Just look at the graphs here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
So a recap:
- We have 1 study that agrees with the overall conclusions of the IPCC
- 1 chaos theory that I can't address right now cuz I don't have access. Sounds like some crazy math so it might take me a while to get back to you on this one anyway.
- 1 unpublished paper that is being reported as disagreeing with it's own leading institution.
- 2 unpublished non-peer reviewed joke of attempts at attacking solar.
Nothing really impressive here.
Post by: richyoung on August 05, 2007, 08:54:51 PM
I am SO GLAD you brought up thermodynamics wacki - how about you tell us what the Earth's theoretical "black body" temp calculates out, and the delta between that and the CURRENT Earth temp. You DO agree that the "black body" temp is the absolute MAXIMUM temp, right?
No I don't. Nowhere near it. Go ahead and try to apply the "black body" calculations to venus and see what you get back. Good luck getting anywhere near the right answer. You can use this spectral calculator and even data from experimental databases to see that the greenhouse effect doesn't stop:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php
Put the CO2 at 380 ppm and look at the 620 -720 cm-1 wavelengths and play with the numbers. Might write more later.
Venus - atmospheric pressure 90 atmospheres
Earth - atmospheric pressure 1 atmosphere
Venus - solar radiation/area = 2 X Earth
Earth - solard radiation/area = 1 X Earth
Venus - % CO2 - 96%!!!
Earth - % CO2 - 0.038%
Suffuce it to say Earth is in NO DANGER of turning into Venus.
Quote
Also, the H2O argument is completely bogus because when you go high enough the air gets really cold (for a while) and water vapor levels drop to almost nothing while CO2 levels remain. This is why climate models are "multi-layered". Just like layers of clothing different layers of the atmosphere insulate differently.
"...water vapor levels drop to almost nothing ...." because they have become ICE CRYSTALS, aka "clouds", which ALSO have effects on overall aldebo and reflectivity/absorption. They don't just disappear via the Global Warming fairy...