Australian Scientist Thinks AGW is Bunk. (Global Warming) [Archive]

blacbird

12-13-2008, 12:07 AM

So, you pick and choose the scientist you like on this issue? I can assure you, there are plenty of thorough and reputable scientists in various disciplines who disagree, and have plenty of data to back up their views.

Dr. Evans is obviously grinding a political axe with the Australian Labor Party here (he served as an advisor to the previous Conservative government, as is noted after the purely political diatribe he indulges in toward at end of the article). And much of the rest of it is filled with unsupported assertions. It's an op-ed piece (and I don't know the nature of this newspaper), so I don't expect a bunch of scientific data to be present here. But, I assure you, plenty of such exists, and you'll see lots of scientists arguing both sides based on their interpretations of the data, for which there often can be more than one valid interpretation.

So there is plenty of room for active and open debate on this matter, but to have such a debate intelligently, you need to do more than simply grab one person you see as agreeable to your political views.

Twenty years ago we used to hear the same kind of assertive argument about global warming happening at all. You don't hear much of that anymore, because the data have just become too voluminous, from too many sources. So now the debate is about whether or not we are causing it, or contributing to it. I'd say this: whether or not either of those things is true, continuing to pour an accelerating quantity of CO2 and other emissions into the atmosphere via industrial processes cannot be a good thing, even in the short term.

As a society we went through about thirty years of a similarly evolving argument concerning whether or not smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. The arc of the global warming debate is highly reminiscent of that previous one.

caw

Don

12-13-2008, 12:52 AM

As a society we went through about thirty years of a similarly evolving argument concerning whether or not smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. The arc of the global warming debate is highly reminiscent of that previous one.

This reminds me more of the arc we went through about 40 years ago concerning global cooling, actually. YMMV.

Clair Dickson

12-13-2008, 02:54 AM

Don

12-13-2008, 03:14 AM

Is there any harm besides inconvenience caused by taking care of the earth-- reducing pollution, saving habits and greenery, etc?

I'd rather err on the side of caution, save a few extra trees, put a few less pollutants in the air and find out I didn't need to. If we are damaging the planet, by the time we know conclusively, it will probably be too late. I don't know if we are or not-- but I don't like to take risks with irreplaceable things.
No harm at all. Pollution is another form of aggression, and if government was doing its job, it would be one of the main issues on their agenda. Instead, FedGov is the largest polluter in the world, last I heard.

Using the GW bandwagon as a way to force a global political agenda down our throats using things like Kyoto, on the other hand, is simply DC criminality as usual.

mscelina

12-13-2008, 03:22 AM

Link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

I post it because news like this is coming in more frequently these days, yet there are people who cling to AGW as devote radical religious folk. I find the arguments humorous.

Glad you found one.

Captshady

12-13-2008, 03:26 AM

Is there any harm besides inconvenience caused by taking care of the earth-- reducing pollution, saving habits and greenery, etc?

I'd rather err on the side of caution, save a few extra trees, put a few less pollutants in the air and find out I didn't need to. If we are damaging the planet, by the time we know conclusively, it will probably be too late. I don't know if we are or not-- but I don't like to take risks with irreplaceable things.

The problem comes in with taxation, over regulation and finger pointing in government.

Glad you found one.

How many more do you want, doll? Just give me a number.

William Haskins

12-13-2008, 04:23 AM

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

benbradley

12-13-2008, 05:19 AM

Anthropogenic:

Definition: effects, processes or materials that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influence.

I'm with you on that, big time. I just don't want to be taxed for "pollution" on a brand new car, or A/C unit.
It's too late, no doubt there are already MANY such taxes. You pay a 'tax' on an automobile for the catalytic converter which does NOTHING for the performance or safety of the car, nor does it reduce CO2 emissions, but it's required by law and adds hundreds of dollars to the car's price.
Is there any harm besides inconvenience caused by taking care of the earth-- reducing pollution, saving habits and greenery, etc?
Actually, the "inconvenience" is like the "inconvenience" of shutting down the Big Three US automakers. I don't have any figures offhand, but a back-of-the-envelope calculation may well show the economic effects to be many times worse than if the "Big 3" all went out of business at once.

To say the Western World making substantial reductions in CO2 output (which, because of fears of AGW, has only recently become considered a form of pollution, and is very different from the usual smoke implied by the words air pollution) would be an "inconvenience" is a severe understatement.

If you're going to burn something to get your energy, it doesn't matter whether it's "dirty" (coal) "clean" (natural gas) or in between (gasoline), it's going to release the same amount of CO2 per unit of energy you get from it. Generally speaking the cheapest energy sources are the dirtiest.

Burning things (which releases carbon dioxide, abbreviated C02, this is taught first-quarter Chemistry) is and always has been THE major source of energy for everyone around the world, with the possible exceptions of sailing ships (which rely on wind power) and modern France.

Sources of energy that do not release CO2 are (that I can think of offhand):

Hydroelectric (the 'easy,' most cost-effective hydroelectric sites are already built),
Solar,
Wind,
Geothermal,
Tidal,
...and a source many people don't want to consider,
Nuclear.

If we're going to substantially reduce our CO2 emissions, we (not just the USA and Europe, but China too!) have got to move our energy sources from combustion (burning things) to a combination of some or all of the sources on that list. But burning things to stay warm and cook food is a LOT cheaper than the alternative.

Actually, it's possible to keep burning things and stop the CO2 emitted from going into the atmosphere, but of course that's not cheap, and only works for big power plants, and isn't feasible for smaller CO2 sources such as internal-combustion (gas and diesel) automobiles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
I'd rather err on the side of caution, save a few extra trees, put a few less pollutants in the air and find out I didn't need to. If we are damaging the planet, by the time we know conclusively, it will probably be too late. I don't know if we are or not-- but I don't like to take risks with irreplaceable things.
Okay, so just exactly what are the risks? Are they any more well known than in Pascal's Wager? (okay, some may feel the risks in Pascal's Water are very well spelled out)
The problem comes in with taxation, over regulation and finger pointing in government.

How many more do you want, doll? Just give me a number.
We could count articles and scientists on each side of the issue, and the majority wins, so scientific journals can stop publishing these minority articles, because they're wrong. That's how a true democracy works, doesn't science work that way too? :roll:

Clair Dickson

12-13-2008, 05:22 PM

So, it would cost insane amounts of money if every walked more, used reusable bags instead either paper or plastic, drove less, and recycled? It would cost insane amounts of money to stop buying single-serve items or those wrapped in twenty-seven layers of packaging? It would cost insane amounts of money to reduce our electrical uses, use more efficient means of heating and cooling (like geothermal), and put solar panels on more buildings? I know many of these things cost more than the 'regular' way of doing things, but can we really say that being environmentally friendly and reducing any potential damage done is just too expensive?

I just saw that plastic storage bins made from recycled materials cost about half of what the normal ones cost. If recycling is so cost prohibitive, then I don't see how it works out to cost less for comparable size and construction.

Yes, we're going to release CO2 into the air but can't we release less... can't we put up more wind turbines (yes, I would like a couple in my yard, please) and solar panels (oh, my, I'm saving my money to put some on my house!)? And other forms of alternative energy? Can't we use less energy (CFL, LED, energy efficient appliances, not leaving the TV on 24/7, etc.) Would it really hurt us that much financially? I mean, seriously, as a culture, we're very happy paying 7 to 10 times the purchase price of an item because it's purchased on a credit card, but we're not willing to pay a few extra bucks out for cleaner resources that won't potentially cause damage. Sounds a little like selfishness-- "I don't want to change my lifestyle." Me, I'd rather pay out now in the hopes of ensuring that our world isn't irreparably damaged.

I'm concerned that we could be wrong-- and I'd rather preserve the world just in case. I still don't see it as cost-prohibitive. So few people are doing all they could just as individuals, let alone as responsible companies. (Yeah, ha, ha, just humor that one.)

Someday, there won't be a blanket of smog over urban areas, but I'm sure there's no harm in smog. No possibility that anything we do today with our emissions or "pollutants" could possibly have any effect on the future earth. It's not like the industrial revolution when soot rained down on the areas around factories... was that worth the money to clean up? Or is it that we've just now reached the point where it's no longer cost efficient to try to preserve the earth for later generations?

Captshady

12-13-2008, 08:34 PM

Don

12-13-2008, 08:51 PM

I think it's important we get back to factual decision-making, instead of following the trends. I've seen reports that say some of the 'green' cars on the market today actually use more energy over their life cycle than a regular low-mileage car. Reduced packaging is a win-win everywhere, as long as the food doesn't go bad sooner and produce even more waste. Recycling in high-density areas is a net energy gain, but I've also seen info that says in some areas it consumes more resources than it contributes.

Decisions have got to be made on a realistic basis, and that means many have to be pushed down to the local level. An example from above, recycling makes a lot more sense in NYC than it does in rural Wyoming.

Beach Bunny

12-13-2008, 09:11 PM

The point is that the scientific community, specifically the IPCC, WMO, UNEP, etc, have knowingly participated in duping the global public. The result has been fees, fines, taxation, institutions, "non profit" groups -the list goes on -much of it having absolutely nothing at all to do with resolving the actual problem. The result is large salaries for non profit CEO's, increased taxes, laws, and penalties to address a fear that is at the very least, over hyped.
Eh, nope, I'm sorry. We don't know enough about atmospheric physics and chemistry to say that either side in this debate is "knowingly participating in duping the public." That statement is just as inflammatory as those you are complaining about.

benbradley

12-13-2008, 09:28 PM

This is a hugely complicated issue. Here is a somewhat technical article on ONE SMALL ASPECT of energy conservation (a big part of attempting to reduce future GW), comparing Compact Fluorescent (and the even newer LED-based) lights to the standard incandescent. The newer lights are good for many applications, but are clearly unsuited or inappropriate for many others, yet several national governments want to BAN the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

MattW

12-13-2008, 09:29 PM

Eh, nope, I'm sorry. We don't know enough about atmospheric physics and chemistry to say that either side in this debate is "knowingly participating in duping the public." That statement is just as inflammatory as those you are complaining about.The side that is demanding immediate action, controls, regulation and penalties is also the side that has assumed that an observation is actually causation.

Should we pollute less? Sure, but if plants voted, CO2 wouldn't be considered a pollutant (they use it to make that horrible byproduct - O2)

Should we conserve more? Sure, but at what tradeoff to efficiency and cost effectiveness?

Should industrialized nations face international pressure, penalties, and limitations that developing countries can blatantly ignore in the interest of "progress"? Simply - no.

Should we be granting millions of research dollars to scientists who have been conditioned to look for a pre-conceived conclusion? I would venture to say no.

blacbird

12-13-2008, 09:34 PM

The point is that the scientific community, specifically the IPCC, WMO, UNEP, etc, have knowingly participated in duping the global public.

Well, no, we don't "know" that. This is the same kind of political axe-grinding that tainted the Evans article you linked, as in his statements about the Australian Liberal Party "trying to ruin the economy". It's one thing to disagree with X about policy Y, and the effects thereof; it's another entirely to accuse X of deliberately trying to "dupe" or "ruin" things. That's political paranoia, and nothing else.

I disagree, pretty strongly, with the manner in which George W. Bush has administered this nation over the past eight years, on a lot of fronts. But I've never accused him of trying to "ruin" it. I have no doubt he thought at every step that he was doing the right thing.

The "scientific community" isn't trying to "dupe" anyone. Nor is the Australian Liberal Party trying to "ruin" the Aussie economy. Rhetoric of that sort is, however, ruinous to intelligent discourse.

caw

MattW

12-13-2008, 09:47 PM

The "scientific community" isn't trying to "dupe" anyone. Nor is the Australian Liberal Party trying to "ruin" the Aussie economy. Rhetoric of that sort is, however, ruinous to intelligent discourse.
Agreed.

Any scientific discourse should be open to question, challenges, and peer review.

Treating climate changes (in any direction) as a given and known leads to too many closed minds about the potential for action.

cethklein

12-13-2008, 10:39 PM

The one reason I never jumped on the global warming bandwagon was that those who promoted it picked and chose their "evidence". I've noticed that in recent years, some in the anti-global warming community are now using the same tactic. Who got the idea that emulating those you oppose was a good thing? It hasn't worked for Israel/Palestine so why would it work for GW/anti-GW arguments?

I find the idea of global warming to be the wrong approach. We shouldn't be talking about global warming we should be talking about cleaning up the environment. The fact our environment is trashed is a lot harder to argue than global warming (although you can bet there are a few who will try anyway.) Global warming is such a broad idea. Why not focus on a tangible issue? Then if global warming WERE real, it would be solved anyway by fixing the environment. Talking about the environment itself would be a win-win.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

I agree with most of the quotes except this one. Kunihiko makes a pretty broad statement. Saying "carbon emissions make no difference" is irresponsible at best. They most certainly do make a difference, even if not in directly causing warming. They ARE a bad thing as most reputable scientists will tell you (including many who oppose global warming theory.)

Agreed.

Any scientific discourse should be open to question, challenges, and peer review.

Treating climate changes (in any direction) as a given and known leads to too many closed minds about the potential for action.

Agreed. This goes back to the first point I made. Many of those who claim global warming is real are politicians who want to use it to make money. But there are also reputable scientists who still believe it's possible that it's real. Global warming is a theory. That means it hasn't be proven OR disproven. To lump every scientist who supports global warming into a group of malicious scam-artists is irresponsible and stupid. I usually expect people who use terms like "dupe" to describe the intentions of other respected scientists to be wearing tin-foil hats. A real scientist usually won't use such terms. Those who seem to THINK they have scientific know-how on the other hand..........................

Beach Bunny

12-13-2008, 11:04 PM

It's too late, no doubt there are already MANY such taxes. You pay a 'tax' on an automobile for the catalytic converter which does NOTHING for the performance or safety of the car, nor does it reduce CO2 emissions, but it's required by law and adds hundreds of dollars to the car's price.

A catalytic convertor is not meant to reduce CO2 emissions. It reduces Nitrogen Oxides, a key component in the formation of tropospheric ozone or smog. If cars didn't have them, in many urban areas you wouldn't be able to breathe. They are very necessary and beneficial to your health.

willfulone

12-13-2008, 11:35 PM

So, you pick and choose the scientist you like on this issue? I can assure you, there are plenty of thorough and reputable scientists in various disciplines who disagree, and have plenty of data to back up their views.

caw

EDITED:

Inadvertent duplication of someone else's post has been removed to save the delicate sensibilities of offended parties.

Here's just a link fer ya - lots more than one:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Christine

cethklein

12-13-2008, 11:41 PM

I guess Haskins posting all that wasn't good enough for you huh?

willfulone

12-13-2008, 11:49 PM

I guess Haskins posting all that wasn't good enough for you huh?

I clicked the post I replied to upthread as I was reading and did not read down thread further. For, I figured to get there once I replied.

I will edit out the comments and just leave link to the information.

Honest mistake.

Not really worth your time smacking - but hey - whatever floats yer boat.

Christine

cethklein

12-13-2008, 11:56 PM

It was a joke, relax.

benbradley

12-14-2008, 12:17 AM

The one reason I never jumped on the global warming bandwagon was that those who promoted it picked and chose their "evidence". I've noticed that in recent years, some in the anti-global warming community are now using the same tactic. Who got the idea that emulating those you oppose was a good thing?
Politicians.
It hasn't worked for Israel/Palestine so why would it work for GW/anti-GW arguments?

I find the idea of global warming to be the wrong approach. We shouldn't be talking about global warming we should be talking about cleaning up the environment. The fact our environment is trashed is a lot harder to argue than global warming (although you can bet there are a few who will try anyway.) Global warming is such a broad idea. Why not focus on a tangible issue? Then if global warming WERE real, it would be solved anyway by fixing the environment.
No it wouldn't. That's the point. See the catalytic converter mentioned below. It "cleans up" a lot of long-known-to-be-bad polluting emissions, but it actually converts many of them into CO2!

Pollution controls were going in place decades before the Global Warming idea became mainstream, and no one was considering reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, which is now widely believed to be the main cause of GW.
Talking about the environment itself would be a win-win.

I agree with most of the quotes except this one. Kunihiko makes a pretty broad statement. Saying "carbon emissions make no difference" is irresponsible at best. They most certainly do make a difference, even if not in directly causing warming. They ARE a bad thing as most reputable scientists will tell you (including many who oppose global warming theory.)
Okay, but Iin what way are carbon emissions bad?

I should claim to be from Mississippi, you need to show me.

Agreed. This goes back to the first point I made. Many of those who claim global warming is real are politicians who want to use it to make money. But there are also reputable scientists who still believe it's possible that it's real. Global warming is a theory.

"Evolution is just a theory." Gag, how I hate such words.
That means it hasn't be proven OR disproven. To lump every scientist who supports global warming into a group of malicious scam-artists is irresponsible and stupid. I usually expect people who use terms like "dupe" to describe the intentions of other respected scientists to be wearing tin-foil hats. A real scientist usually won't use such terms. Those who seem to THINK they have scientific know-how on the other hand..........................

A catalytic convertor is not meant to reduce CO2 emissions.
Yeah. I know what it does.
It reduces Nitrogen Oxides, a key component in the formation of tropospheric ozone or smog. If cars didn't have them, in many urban areas you wouldn't be able to breathe. They are very necessary and beneficial to your health.
And that was my point in the earlier post, it's effectively a tax, a government-required item, to clean up the environmemt. There are already lots of such taxes. The guy with the page on CF bulbs advocates a tax on incandescent light bulbs rather than banning them, to make them more expensive and reduce the demand, and they can still be used in applications where they make sense.

fullbookjacket

12-14-2008, 04:22 AM

I had no idea AGW stood for global warming...what's the "A" stand for? I wasn't sure what you were talking about, but hey it's Friday, so I followed your link. Good article.

I don't believe we have convincing evidence that human activity is causing global warming or that is/was more than a cyclical phenomenon, but I'm good with less air pollution...

The anti-environment crowd began calling it "human-caused" global warming after years of denying that it even existed, once the evidence was clear that it really was happening. Now they simply claim that it's all natural...sunspots or whatever.

It's part of the well-heeled backlash funded by big business.

Look around, people. Remember Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro?" Those snows will be completely gone soon. Ever heard of Glacier National Park? The glaciers are expected to be gone within a couple of decades. These represent the sudden demise of features that have been around for many thousands of years, vanishing in our lifetimes.

benbradley

12-14-2008, 04:51 AM

Beach Bunny

12-14-2008, 05:32 AM

No it wouldn't. That's the point. See the catalytic converter mentioned below. It "cleans up" a lot of long-known-to-be-bad polluting emissions, but it actually converts many of them into CO2!

Pollution controls were going in place decades before the Global Warming idea became mainstream, and no one was considering reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, which is now widely believed to be the main cause of GW.

Yeah. I know what it does.

And that was my point in the earlier post, it's effectively a tax, a government-required item, to clean up the environmemt. There are already lots of such taxes. The guy with the page on CF bulbs advocates a tax on incandescent light bulbs rather than banning them, to make them more expensive and reduce the demand, and they can still be used in applications where they make sense.
I had to go back and reread your original post about five times before I saw the leap in logic you were taking and could follow you. :o

There is a problem with controlling emissions instead of reducing them or not producing them in the first place that you're circling around.

Take any source of combustion or air pollution, when the engineers are designing the new process or the emission control devices, they have to balance what they control and how they control it. Sometimes, you reduce one problem pollutant, but increase another. Sometimes you can reduce one pollutant and produce one that is worse. Sometimes you can reduce one and it will also reduce another. It's not a simple matter of slapping something onto the tail end of the exhaust pipe or stack. The math and design drawings would boggle all but an engineer's mind.

When you are talking about retrofitting an existing plant to reduce emissions, it can get really expensive and not as effective as designing the control devices in the first place.

Taking the catalytic convertors as an example, you've reduced NOx and carbon monoxide, but you've increased the CO2 emissions. Well, shit, CO2 emissions are getting real high, we've got data that suggest that if we continue doing this we're going to have a global problem. Now what do we do? So, the scientists and engineers, who study this problem and are working to come up with a solution, are having to balance a lot of different factors in developing a strategy.

The biggest problem hindering the efforts of implementing a solution are the fringes at the edge of debate. As an environmental engineer, very rarely do I speak out on these topics under discussions. Because there is always an extremist on one side or/and the other who will NOT listen. I'd rather have a root canal than try to educate and inform an extremist about a given situation. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. As soon as someone says "I'm a member of the Tree Loving Bunny Hugging Society", we shut up about what we do. Same goes for the "Pump it all out into the Environment and let God sort it out" crowd.

We will, however, happily discuss the situation with open-minded people who will listen. :)

Diana Hignutt

12-14-2008, 06:00 AM

The anti-environment crowd began calling it "human-caused" global warming after years of denying that it even existed, once the evidence was clear that it really was happening. Now they simply claim that it's all natural...sunspots or whatever.

It's part of the well-heeled backlash funded by big business.

Look around, people. Remember Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro?" Those snows will be completely gone soon. Ever heard of Glacier National Park? The glaciers are expected to be gone within a couple of decades. These represent the sudden demise of features that have been around for many thousands of years, vanishing in our lifetimes.

There's too much money involved on both sides to believe anyone on this issue, that's my problem.

BTW, your examples, in no way, prove human involvement. There used to be jungles in the Artic, too...

dmytryp

12-14-2008, 12:45 PM

On a related note:

Skepticism on climate change (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/)

A couple of quotes from the link and links from within the original link:
They are far from monolithic, but on this they would all agree: Science is not settled by majority vote, especially in a field as young as climate science.

...snip

Expect to see more of this. The debate goes on, as it should.

And got to love Gore's quote (well, actually his spokesperson)
"Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don't believe we landed on the moon," Gore's spokeswoman told The Politico (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D0C4924D-18FE-70B2-A808D77A9C1FFFD3) a few days ago.

From the links inside:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D0C4924D-18FE-70B2-A808D77A9C1FFFD3

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311

Just to show the guy in the op is certainly not alone (which within itself is nothing)
Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.
The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.
A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

And finally, for those interested, a conference in New York that focuses on problems with current GW consensus theory and its implications for policies.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/PDFs/ConferenceSchedule.pdf

And again, because bares repeating -- Science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists agree on something, it doesn't make it true one way or the other.

fullbookjacket

12-14-2008, 06:24 PM

There's too much money involved on both sides to believe anyone on this issue, that's my problem.

BTW, your examples, in no way, prove human involvement. There used to be jungles in the Artic, too...

The levels of methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are measurable and they've skyrocketed since the advent of the industrial age. I can't imagine that anyone would argue that that is not related to human activity. I suppose that if you want to argue that humans haven't changed global conditions, that's your prerogative, but you're standing on thin ice (that's getting thinner every day).

Please share your evidence of Arctic jungles.

I suspect you're referring to the dinosaur epochs. Even so, referring to "jungles" isn't accurate. The common misconception of the dinosaurs only living in steamy, tropical swamps is just that, a misconception. Dinosaurs lived in temperate, cold zones as well. Some ranged into the far north.

You may be referring to the Antarctic, which is a continent subject to drift and which once existed far to the north during the dinosaur ages. Plate tectonics moved the Antarctic to the bottom of the world, across tens of millions of years. So your argument is specious at best. We're talking about significant climate change occurring over the span of decades, not a hundred million years.

Diana Hignutt

12-14-2008, 07:05 PM

Please share your evidence of Arctic jungles.

Ask, and ye shall recieve, from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?pagewanted=print

Perhaps, semi-tropical would have been a better description, perhaps, not.

willfulone

12-14-2008, 08:37 PM

Ask, and ye shall recieve, from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?pagewanted=print

Perhaps, semi-tropical would have been a better description, perhaps, not.

The term used (that I see most often when I read) is temperate. But trees WERE there, so you were not incorrect:

Climatic Cooling from 60 million years ago to present day

Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere Island at 78 degrees North.

From NOVA:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

Yeah, I STILL have all those links from all the other global warming threads I posted and linked in...I love discussion about GW.

Christine

dmytryp

12-15-2008, 12:20 PM

A really interesting op-ed (coming strangely from the same paper as op) on the subject of GW impacts and the policies planned to offset it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24799129-7583,00.html

dgiharris

12-15-2008, 06:56 PM

So, you pick and choose the scientist you like on this issue? I can assure you, there are plenty of thorough and reputable scientists in various disciplines who disagree, and have plenty of data to back up their views.

The data you speak of is not conclusive, no where close. There is no smoking gun data, just a bunch of theories and models, nothing that shows causation.

When scientists proposes models and theories they look for something in nature that can serve as proof. If there model and theory is valid, than they should tell you WHERE to find the smoking gun.

Einstein's theory of relativity is a PERFECT example. In a nutshell, his theory basically stated that a large massive object should exert an influence on 'space-time' resulting in the bending of light. Hmmm.... Where would be the proof of this theory??? The sun. What light could it bend? How about distant stars? How could we see it? How about during an eclipse.

Set up experiment, BAM!!!!, 1922 eclispe verified Einstiens 1917 theory.

But what about the Global Warming theories? If the theories are valid, they should point to exactly how you can find the smoking gun. And they did. They stated that you should be able to see the smoking gun in the form of a hot-spot in the upper atmosphere. So they did the experiments, but opps, smoking gun was not found. And this should tell you something.

But rather than listen to the evidentiary data, lets take existing observation based data and throw it into a computer model to retro-actively explain the observed data. As a former scientist, i've got to throw the BS flag on that.

Is there any harm besides inconvenience caused by taking care of the earth-- reducing pollution, saving habits and greenery, etc?

Within reason. It is never wrong to do the right thing, but taking a wrecking ball to every industrialized nation's economy in the world based on a theory is a bit much.

The point is that the scientific community, specifically the IPCC, WMO, UNEP, etc, have knowingly participated in duping the global public. The result has been fees, fines, taxation, institutions, "non profit" groups -the list goes on -much of it having absolutely nothing at all to do with resolving the actual problem. The result is large salaries for non profit CEO's, increased taxes, laws, and penalties to address a fear that is at the very least, over hyped.

Yes, this is what really makes me upset. Mixing Science and Politics is just as bad if not worse than mixing Politics and Religion.

Science is the harbinger of truth, the only discipline that is supposed to hold its only alliance to the truth, and I see it being corrupted to serve this hybrid religion/political beast known as AGW.

THe problem is that if you are a scientist and you wish to be funded (assuming your research is associated with geology) then you are forced to research in a manner that will PROVE AGW. That is not science. It is political. And heaven help you if your theories actual prove opposite of AGW.

*sigh*

I don't mean to be condescending, but I don't think the public really understands the ramifications of the AGW groupthink.

The groupthink is such that as a scientist you get a scarlet letter for not jumping on the bandwagon. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

As a scientist, you should be free to go where the data takes you and until there is CONCLUSIVE data, ALL THEORIES ARE WELCOMED!!!!

The opposing theories are VITAL in actually finding the real valid theory.

The side that is demanding immediate action, controls, regulation and penalties is also the side that has assumed that an observation is actually causation.

Should we pollute less? Sure, but if plants voted, CO2 wouldn't be considered a pollutant (they use it to make that horrible byproduct - O2)

Should we conserve more? Sure, but at what tradeoff to efficiency and cost effectiveness?

Should industrialized nations face international pressure, penalties, and limitations that developing countries can blatantly ignore in the interest of "progress"? Simply - no.

Should we be granting millions of research dollars to scientists who have been conditioned to look for a pre-conceived conclusion? I would venture to say no.

Agreed. The real tragedy is that we are taking a lot of brilliant minds (and millions of man-hours) and forcing them to validate a theory rather than giving them the same resources and letting them reach conclusions on their own. ANd if those conclusions/data led to AGW then so be it. But that is not the case. If you do not show that your research will help or prove AGW then you do not get funded. So hmmm.... I wonder what the result will be?

ANd Haskins nailed it with his post.

I am not saying AGW is not happening, it very well 'could be' however, the data leaves a lot to be desired. The theories should point to CONCLUSIVE evidence and it does not. What I see is a lot of massaging of data. Computer models and the like.

ANd don't let the term 'computer model' fool you. It is sexy, but computer models are only as good as the theory they are based on. And trust me when I say our understanding of weather physics leaves a lot to be desired. I would say that our ability to build a comprehensive model on Earth weather physics is equivalent to a group of ten year olds designing a Boeing 777 pasenger plane.

I know we have all this technology but we really are still 'learning'. There is a lot of physics that still is not know yet and the problem compounds to infinity as all these factors interact with one another.

My guess is that in the next 40 yrs, we will be equivalent to a bunch of high school kids desining a Boeing 777 and in the next 80 yrs we will be equivalent to a bunch of college kids designing a Boeing 777 and in the next 120 yrs a bunch of grad students designing a Boeing 777....

We still have a lot to learn. ANd that is why untainted unbaised data and research is essential.

Mel...

robeiae

12-15-2008, 07:46 PM

But rather than listen to the evidentiary data, lets take existing observation based data and throw it into a computer model to retro-actively explain the observed data. As a former scientist, i've got to throw the BS flag on that.
Beautifully stated.

For my part, I don't know--as a matter of fact--that man-made global warming is a real phenomenon.

What I do know, however, is the idea that we can fashion a plan to to halt/change/reverse a global phenomenon is beyond arrogant.

Higgins

12-15-2008, 09:04 PM

I guess Haskins posting all that wasn't good enough for you huh?

I've looked at lots of the data myself and a bunch of "I'm skeptical" quotes
are no substitute for actually looking at the data.

From the data, and what we know of past climates, we can see that if certain parameters are changed, then the climate changes and that's where we are -- in the midst of a major change in climate caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.

benbradley

12-15-2008, 09:24 PM

I've looked at lots of the data myself and a bunch of "I'm skeptical" quotes
are no substitute for actually looking at the data.

From the data, and what we know of past climates, we can see that if certain parameters are changed, then the climate changes and that's where we are -- in the midst of a major change in climate caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.
So where's the data you looked at? What do "we" know of past climates, etc.?

This may be too much for a forum post, but it looks like you may have the makings of a book. And hey, it's a topical topic.

Tirjasdyn

12-15-2008, 09:34 PM

I've looked at lots of the data myself and a bunch of "I'm skeptical" quotes
are no substitute for actually looking at the data.

From the data, and what we know of past climates, we can see that if certain parameters are changed, then the climate changes and that's where we are -- in the midst of a major change in climate caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.

When not taking into account volcanic activity and pine beetle decimation, yes. Otherwise...not. Even the UN report states it does not take natural activity into account.

Higgins

12-15-2008, 09:45 PM

So where's the data you looked at? What do "we" know of past climates, etc.?

This may be too much for a forum post, but it looks like you may have the makings of a book. And hey, it's a topical topic.

Ice core data is the best. This is a recent summary of some ice core data. You can find articles that have such things as the actual program
code for some of the analyses and printouts of the data. If I've
found it, it really can't be all that hard to find. It's all in pretty standard journals and a lot is online.

I'm a little puzzled as to why most people don't seem to be able
to look at the data and the analyses and see what is happening.
I mean, I'm not sure what is missing in terms of seeing the physical
world in terms of processes and parameters (well maybe that's it?)...
It seems like a little statistics, a little paleontology, some minor computer know-how a little molecular/optic physics, a tiny dose of statistical mechanics, some looks at climate models as simulations and maybe a few differential equations...would do it. I guess I should write the book though. It would be small. A "skeptic" could read it in an afternoon
and stop wasting their time gathering quotes from people who are "skeptical" as if that amounted to actually figuring out what was going on.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Greenland_Ice_Core_Analysis_Shows_Drastic_Climate_ Change_Near_End_Of_Last_Ice_Age_999.html

Dale Emery

12-15-2008, 10:24 PM

I'm a little puzzled as to why most people don't seem to be able to look at the data and the analyses and see what is happening.

I find that I'm not qualified to understand the details. I'm a pretty bright guy, reasonably facile with science in general, but whenever I follow an explanation of global warming (either supporting or denying the AGW conclusion), the explanation inevitably and quickly involves concepts that I don't know, and don't understand the implications of.

Ultimately I'm left with: Which scientists seem more credible to me, given my biases?

Dale

Diana Hignutt

12-15-2008, 10:35 PM

I've looked at lots of the data myself and a bunch of "I'm skeptical" quotes
are no substitute for actually looking at the data.

From the data, and what we know of past climates, we can see that if certain parameters are changed, then the climate changes and that's where we are -- in the midst of a major change in climate caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.

There are too many variables in the equation, you're kidding yourself if you believe you know them all.

Higgins

12-15-2008, 10:38 PM

I find that I'm not qualified to understand the details. I'm a pretty bright guy, reasonably facile with science in general, but whenever I follow an explanation of global warming (either supporting or denying the AGW conclusion), the explanation inevitably and quickly involves concepts that I don't know, and don't understand the implications of.

Ultimately I'm left with: Which scientists seem more credible to me, given my biases?

Dale

I think the crucial detail that people seem to overlook is that there is change in the CO2 and CO2 is obviously just one component in a climate system that would otherwise be at some set of equilibria. So you have

1) system at equilibrium (where say CO2 is at .5% of the atmosphere at sea level and is trapping say 5% of the energy entering the atmosphere)
2) system entering some other state (where CO2 is at 1.5% and is trapping say 15%)

And we know that the climate has changed very very fast in the recent past. Well, you are looking at a major change in a huge system and the results are not likely to be good since human societies have developed under the 1st case above.

No details. Just a change in a parameter in a system otherwise at equilibrium.

Higgins

12-15-2008, 10:43 PM

There are too many variables in the equation, you're kidding yourself if you believe you know them all.

You don't have to know all the variables. To see that AGW is likely to be a big problem all you have to do is follow the following reasoning:

There is change in the CO2 and CO2 is obviously just one component in a climate system that would otherwise be at some set of equilibria. So you have

1) system at equilibrium (where say CO2 is at .5% of the atmosphere at sea level and is trapping say 5% of the energy entering the atmosphere)
2) system entering some other state (where CO2 is at 1.5% and is trapping say 15%)

And we know that the climate has changed very very fast in the recent past. Well, you are looking at a major change in a huge system and the results are not likely to be good since human societies have developed under the 1st case above.

No details. Just a change in a parameter in a system otherwise at equilibrium.

willfulone

12-15-2008, 10:51 PM

So where's the data you looked at? What do "we" know of past climates, etc.?

This may be too much for a forum post, but it looks like you may have the makings of a book. And hey, it's a topical topic.

There is a lot of information about the past and how they have determined what was where/when with core samples.

The what is where and when shows how things moved about the planet for survival (if necessary). And if they moved, where they ended up. And, while extrapolation is necessary to determine why moved, the placement of where they ended up and another core sample would tell flora/fauna there.

Evidence of certain types of flora and fauna in a core samples will help tell the climate. For instance, a palm tree in the artic (not saying it happened - just giving an example) at any given time would indicate how warm it got to support that flora. And, lack of flora/fauna in an area would support certain types of other climates that were not condusive to supporting life (or certain types). Thus, certain things can be determined about climates from those samples in a given area.

Here is some reading about this type of stuff if you wish to have a peek:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/CORE_REPOSITORY/RHP5c.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/CORE_REPOSITORY/RHP4.html

http://gdr.nrcan.gc.ca/pad/index_e.php

http://www.annalsofgeophysics.net/A_Deposit_Core_Analysis_A_Comparison_in_Methods.ht ml

http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Core/crc.html

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/kochi/e/study/core.html

http://asunews.asu.edu/20070927_earthoxygen

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/EarthMars.aspx

Christine

robeiae

12-15-2008, 10:58 PM

willfulone

12-15-2008, 11:00 PM

You don't have to know all the variables. So see that AGW is likely to be a big problem all you have to do is follow the following reasoning:

There is change in the CO2 and CO2 is obviously just one component in a climate system that would otherwise be at some set of equilibria. So you have

1) system at equilibrium (where say CO2 is at .5% of the atmosphere at sea level and is trapping say 5% of the energy entering the atmosphere)
2) system entering some other state (where CO2 is at 1.5% and is trapping say 15%)

And we know that the climate has changed very very fast in the recent past. Well, you are looking at a major change in a huge system and the results are not likely to be good since human societies have developed under the 1st case above.

No details. Just a change in a parameter in a system otherwise at equilibrium.

HUH? You don't have to know all the variables to determine a result in an equation? My physics professor would die, right now, if he were not already dead to hear such a statement.

There seems to be increase in CO2. True. But that is not the only thing that affects warming. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. And it is not known how the feedback loops work in determining how much heat Water Vapor traps and holds in the warming process. So, to look at a small portion when the rest (the largest portion) of the equasion is a big unknown is not really taking all the facts into consideration.

Faulty and incomplete data produces faulty and incomplete results.

Christine

Higgins

12-15-2008, 11:10 PM

HUH? You don't have to know all the variables to determine a result in an equation? My physics professor would die, right now, if he were not already dead to hear such a statement.

There seems to be increase in CO2. True. But that is not the only thing that affects warming. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. And it is not known how the feedback loops work in determining how much heat Water Vapor traps and holds in the warming process. So, to look at a small portion when the rest (the largest portion) of the equasion is a big unknown is not really taking all the facts into consideration.

Faulty and incomplete data produces faulty and incomplete results.

Christine

We do know that the climate at some point (say 1730) was at an equilibrium. In effect the other variables acted to damp the various oscillations. Now we have the case where one variable is going through the roof and we have a driven system rather than a damped one.
So (to do the scientific thing) imagine CO2 is the power of a spring on an oscillating weight. We can model the oscillations of the spring as damped by other variables and show that is a set of oscillations in equilibrium for some set of parameters. Then we start increasing the power of the spring (the Co2 variable)...we can be certain that the earlier equilibrium will not hold because we know that one parameter is going to start driving the system into some other state.

Higgins

12-15-2008, 11:13 PM

It's also changed very, very fast in the distant past. Probably all that saurian construction...

But look, there is no flat equilibrium state for an open, complex system. You're kidding yourself if you think there is.

I'm sure it oscillates, but we know the size of those oscillations.

We also know of some very powerful events (such as deep ocean circulation) that can change just about everything about all the parameters.

So...one thing you don't want to do is to kick one parameter really hard in a system at some kind of equilibrium, especially if it is the equilibrium your whole history occurred in...

Don

12-15-2008, 11:14 PM

The climate was at equilibrium? Srsly? All bazillion cubic miles of it?

Dale Emery

12-15-2008, 11:16 PM

I think the crucial detail that people seem to overlook is that there is change in the CO2 and CO2 is obviously just one component in a climate system that would otherwise be at some set of equilibria. So you have

1) system at equilibrium (where say CO2 is at .5% of the atmosphere at sea level and is trapping say 5% of the energy entering the atmosphere)
2) system entering some other state (where CO2 is at 1.5% and is trapping say 15%)

And we know that the climate has changed very very fast in the recent past. Well, you are looking at a major change in a huge system and the results are not likely to be good since human societies have developed under the 1st case above.

No details. Just a change in a parameter in a system otherwise at equilibrium.

It quickly becomes more than I can sort out.

I do know enough about systems theory to know that when there are multiple feedback loops, systems can easily become nonlinear. A small disturbance is amplified into a big effect. And there are also balancing feedback loops. And loops upon loops.

What I don't know with AGW is what variables are important, what feedback loops are important, and what mechanisms enact those feedback loops. And when a system becomes complex enough, I don't trust anyone who hasn't studied it for long enough to sort out the some of the key mechanisms and variables and feedback loops. In particular, I don't trust myself to understand a complex system in which I have no specific expertise. One thing that is clear to me: Global climate is a monstrously complex system.

I'm not saying that nobody understands the global climate. I'm only saying that the complexity of the beast leaves it way outside of my ability to analyze.

So ultimately I'm left to my biases and the reasonableness with which the arguments are presented (independent of their technical content, which I can't understand). Given that, I tilt slightly toward the AGW camp.

Dale

Higgins

12-15-2008, 11:22 PM

The climate was at equilibrium? Srsly? All bazillion cubic miles of it?

Yes. The fact that there is a word "climate" suggests there is a common and correct impression that there is some range of normal oscillations for various parameters (such as temperature and rainfall) over time and that the atmosphere has some quite regular cycles.

willfulone

12-15-2008, 11:24 PM

We do know that the climate at some point (say 1730) was at an equilibrium. In effect the other variables acted to damp the various oscillations. Now we have the case where one variable is going through the roof and we have a driven system rather than a damped one.
So (to do the scientific thing) imagine CO2 is the power of a spring on an oscillating weight. We can model the oscillations of the spring as damped by other variables and show that is a set of oscillations in equilibrium for some set of parameters. Then we start increasing the power of the spring (the Co2 variable)...we can be certain that the earlier equilibrium will not hold because we know that one parameter is going to start driving the system into some other state.

We DO know that ice ages have come before - many times. We know there has been warming before or the earth would be a ball of ice yet. We know that the earth has gone through periods of stability and shifts in equilibrium ALL BY ITSELF - before man. For BILLIONS of years.

Not to mention - reduction of CO2 has been determined to be a significant factor in cooling the earth into an ice age.

Christine

Higgins

12-15-2008, 11:27 PM

It quickly becomes more than I can sort out.

I do know enough about systems theory to know that when there are multiple feedback loops, systems can easily become nonlinear. A small disturbance is amplified into a big effect. And there are also balancing feedback loops. And loops upon loops.

What I don't know with AGW is what variables are important, what feedback loops are important, and what mechanisms enact those feedback loops. And when a system becomes complex enough, I don't trust anyone who hasn't studied it for long enough to sort out the some of the key mechanisms and variables and feedback loops. In particular, I don't trust myself to understand a complex system in which I have no specific expertise. One thing that is clear to me: Global climate is a monstrously complex system.

I'm not saying that nobody understands the global climate. I'm only saying that the complexity of the beast leaves it way outside of my ability to analyze.

So ultimately I'm left to my biases and the reasonableness with which the arguments are presented (independent of their technical content, which I can't understand). Given that, I tilt slightly toward the AGW camp.

Dale

The idea of feedback in this case is essentially that the ensemble of parameters could damp the effects of increasing CO2 if it stayed within some range,
but it is not only moving out of that range (at some point) but it is continuing to increase. At some point the feedback fails or even increases rather than damps the effects of CO2 increase and the equilibrium holding things within some range or even accellerates things in an unexpected out-of-range direction.

dgiharris

12-15-2008, 11:33 PM

...So ultimately I'm left to my biases and the reasonableness with which the arguments are presented (independent of their technical content, which I can't understand). Given that, I tilt slightly toward the AGW camp.

I think this is reasonable. I don't mind tilting to the theory. However, the current world wide scientific view of AGW is much more than a tilt. It is the wholesale preach of it as if it were gospel. Even to the point of passing legislation that will have a profound impact on industry.

but getting away from that for a moment. The biggest concern I have is us dicking around with an environment we don't fully understand.

I saw a proposal to build systems that would remove C02 from the air. The concept was on the discovery channel. A series of artificial trees that had a polymer that extracted CO2 out of the air. You simply 'wet' the polymer and it re-releasing the collect CO2. You could then drain away the CO2 into another system....

that disturbed me. They went on to state that you could eliminate all man-made (and cow made) C02 with 60 million of these trees.

Yes, that is a little pie-in-the-sky but this line of logic scares me some. I'm not a big fan of screwing with things I don't understand.

Now, if they put these 'trees' up in cities, i'd have very little problem with that. But the proposal had them putting these trees EVERYWHERE.

Anyways, my concern is with Mankind dicking around with things we don't completely understand. Unfortunately, that is our nature.

Currently, the environment and the Human Genome are on the playground

Mel...

Diana Hignutt

12-15-2008, 11:37 PM

You don't have to know all the variables. To see that AGW is likely to be a big problem all you have to do is follow the following reasoning:

There is change in the CO2 and CO2 is obviously just one component in a climate system that would otherwise be at some set of equilibria. So you have

1) system at equilibrium (where say CO2 is at .5% of the atmosphere at sea level and is trapping say 5% of the energy entering the atmosphere)
2) system entering some other state (where CO2 is at 1.5% and is trapping say 15%)

And we know that the climate has changed very very fast in the recent past. Well, you are looking at a major change in a huge system and the results are not likely to be good since human societies have developed under the 1st case above.

No details. Just a change in a parameter in a system otherwise at equilibrium.

First off, your assumption that this system was anywhere near equilibrium is absurd; it's like ceteris parabus in economics--it destroys your argument before you start.

Global climate systems are too vasty complex to even be able to pretend to know which variables we need and which we don't. Sorry, I remain unconviced.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 12:33 AM

First off, your assumption that this system was anywhere near equilibrium is absurd; it's like ceteris parabus in economics--it destroys your argument before you start.

Global climate systems are too vasty complex to even be able to pretend to know which variables we need and which we don't. Sorry, I remain unconviced.

I don't think you can argue that because something is "complex" (what does that mean? Big?) that it is entirely unknowable. If we know about some parameters over time and their effects then we do know when the system is in equilibrium or not. There is a notion -- "climate" --that suggests a lot of cyclic regularity in the atmosphere.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 12:36 AM

We DO know that ice ages have come before - many times. We know there has been warming before or the earth would be a ball of ice yet. We know that the earth has gone through periods of stability and shifts in equilibrium ALL BY ITSELF - before man. For BILLIONS of years.

Not to mention - reduction of CO2 has been determined to be a significant factor in cooling the earth into an ice age.

Christine

The earth's climates as a series of equilibrium states are no big mystery. We know that changes in some parameters can cause major changes in climate. CO2 is one of these and it is changing.

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 12:38 AM

We do know that the climate at some point (say 1730) was at an equilibrium. In effect the other variables acted to damp the various oscillations. Now we have the case where one variable is going through the roof and we have a driven system rather than a damped one.
So (to do the scientific thing) imagine CO2 is the power of a spring on an oscillating weight. We can model the oscillations of the spring as damped by other variables and show that is a set of oscillations in equilibrium for some set of parameters. Then we start increasing the power of the spring (the Co2 variable)...we can be certain that the earlier equilibrium will not hold because we know that one parameter is going to start driving the system into some other state.

Actually no we don't.

All we know is that's about when humans started recording temps.

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 12:39 AM

This is the worst idea ever. I like trees, and flowers and fruit and veggies. I really like veggies.

I think this is reasonable. I don't mind tilting to the theory. However, the current world wide scientific view of AGW is much more than a tilt. It is the wholesale preach of it as if it were gospel. Even to the point of passing legislation that will have a profound impact on industry.

but getting away from that for a moment. The biggest concern I have is us dicking around with an environment we don't fully understand.

I saw a proposal to build systems that would remove C02 from the air. The concept was on the discovery channel. A series of artificial trees that had a polymer that extracted CO2 out of the air. You simply 'wet' the polymer and it re-releasing the collect CO2. You could then drain away the CO2 into another system....

that disturbed me. They went on to state that you could eliminate all man-made (and cow made) C02 with 60 million of these trees.

Yes, that is a little pie-in-the-sky but this line of logic scares me some. I'm not a big fan of screwing with things I don't understand.

Now, if they put these 'trees' up in cities, i'd have very little problem with that. But the proposal had them putting these trees EVERYWHERE.

Anyways, my concern is with Mankind dicking around with things we don't completely understand. Unfortunately, that is our nature.

Currently, the environment and the Human Genome are on the playground

Mel...

Higgins

12-16-2008, 12:46 AM

Actually no we don't.

All we know is that's about when humans started recording temps.

No, you can figure out what the temperature was all the way back to the Cambrian (and probably even further back) by using Oxygen isotope ratios.

You can get better information from other sources: types of plants in different areas and ice cores.

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 12:50 AM

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 12:59 AM

No, you can figure out what the temperature was all the way back to the Cambrian (and probably even further back) by using Oxygen isotope ratios.

You can get better information from other sources: types of plants in different areas and ice cores.

Um no. You can only depend on the data given by oxygen isotope ratios IF you have other concrete data to collaborate it with. Salinity and contamination during recrystallization mess with data. It's not dependable. At most it collaborates well when we know ice to be present.

This gets sticky when you look at locations of prehistoric villages in the alps. There should have been ice there but....

Higgins

12-16-2008, 01:14 AM

I am sorry, Higgins, Earth's climate is not and never was at equilibrium. It is an open system with ever changing input and output of energy.

Just because a system is open doesn't mean it can't be at an equilibrium plus the more one cites "feedback loops" to show (what? how can you say "loop" without implying an equilibrium?) that nobody knows what's going on the more it suggests that everybody does know perfectly well that if you fiddle with the parameters you are going to push the system to a different equilibrium. I don't see why pretending that this is not all perfectly obvious is such a good idea.

If this were any other system, it would be perfectly clear that you can't mess with a major parameter and expect the effect to be damped out.

The fact that there are points in the regime where CO2 behaves in ways that are "out of step" (again as with damping, implying an equilibruim) just suggests that it is one of the more sensitive parameters and is all the more reason not to blythely assume you can push it all over with no effects.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 01:23 AM

Um no. You can only depend on the data given by oxygen isotope ratios IF you have other concrete data to collaborate it with. Salinity and contamination during recrystallization mess with data. It's not dependable. At most it collaborates well when we know ice to be present.

This gets sticky when you look at locations of prehistoric villages in the alps. There should have been ice there but....

Well, it seems to work in the Cambrian:

http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/6/1212

Higgins

12-16-2008, 01:28 AM

Finally, your suggestion that people (many prominent physicists among them) are unable to grasp a simple limkage is insulting.

If they are worried about being insulted, perhaps they should make the effort to grasp the simple linkage.

If a man falls out of a boat over and over because sitting down is too difficult for him, I leave the excuse to him because I can only suggest that perhaps sitting down is the best way to avoid falling out of the boat.

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 02:09 AM

Well, it seems to work in the Cambrian:

http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/6/1212

You can't prove anything from an abstract. I don't have a subscription or $15.00 to pay for just the article.

Try not to post abstracts.

In fact...on this topic I'm not finding anything but abstracts posted on the internet. None of these include conclusions.

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 02:10 AM

If they are worried about being insulted, perhaps they should make the effort to grasp the simple linkage.

If a man falls out of a boat over and over because sitting down is too difficult for him, I leave the excuse to him because I can only suggest that perhaps sitting down is the best way to avoid falling out of the boat.

If a man falls out of a boat over and over again JUST because he's standing...some one should take him to the hospital.

robeiae

12-16-2008, 02:47 AM

Just because a system is open doesn't mean it can't be at an equilibrium...
Depends on the system.

A complex open system can be at a dynamic equilibrium, but that's not what you're arguing. Again, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

blacbird

12-16-2008, 03:35 AM

Finally, your suggestion that people (many prominent physicists among them) are unable to grasp a simple limkage is insulting.

What's a limkage?

caw

Don

12-16-2008, 03:58 AM

What's a limkage?

caw
Where you lock up the bad limes?

dgiharris

12-16-2008, 04:34 AM

I am sorry, Higgins, Earth's climate is not and never was at equilibrium. It is an open system with ever changing input and output of energy. Even for a certain set of CO2 concentration it would take Earth thousands of years untill ice caps and oceans adjust to the equilibrium state. The ice core data actually shows that CO2 couldn't be the temperature driver because CO2 concentartion trail temperatures by several hundred years (except for the last 100 years or so. This happens because CO2 is released from oceans as they heat up and is absorbed as they cool down). This means that CO2 could at best be a contributing factor through feedback loops.

Second, your assumption that CO2 was the only changed parameter is wrong, too. Solar activity during the last hundred years (with small exceptions) was higher than it had been for a thousand years.

Your claim that changes in CO2 could swing Earth out of an quasi-equilibrium state rest on certain assumption of the sensitivity of the climate to changes in radiative budget (which in turn is affected by CO2 levels, solar activity, aerosols, etc.) Several recent studies suggest that this sensitivity to the change in radiative budget associated with doubling of CO2 levels is much lower than predicted by most models (up to three times less), which in turn would mean that temperature change due to doubling of CO2 concentration would be signifficantly less. It also means that even drastic reductions of CO2 emissions (like 50%) would have only marginal effects on the temperature.

Finally, your suggestion that people (many prominent physicists among them) are unable to grasp a simple limkage is insulting.

This is pretty much dead on.

The biggest problem many people have when preaching the Gospel of AGW is that they think they understand and grasp the complexity of the Earth's constantly changing weather patterns. Using the term 'equilibrium' is about a pointless as a bowl of jello.

Equilibruim? On whose time scale. If we are talking geological time scale, then man's reign on earth is a blink of an eye. If we are talking in terms of continental drift, then there is no way man's contribution is remotely significant. But somehow, we try to bound the complexity of the Entire earth's ecosystem within the couple of hundred years we developed a standardize means to measure temperature. And probably 90% of that time, our temperature measurements are not near as complete as they would need to be to prove or disprove a theory.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with the AGW is just the complexity and scale of the issue. The entire issue boils down to one little parameter, CO2. Something that is a natural byproduct of the majority of organisms on this planet. No real other mention of other contributing factors to include solar activity, and solar is perhaps the biggest contributor. How long have we been recording (to scientific certainty) solar activity? Maybe 50 years?

Anyways, I guess i've rambled enough. It is not so cut and dry as AGW theorist would lead you to believe

Mel...

Joe270

12-16-2008, 06:24 AM

Using the term 'equilibrium' is about a pointless as a bowl of jello.

Exactly.

I found the statement disturbing. So we don't have to know any of the facts, just know that nature was in equilibrium, and now it's not, and we humans are to blame.

Bizarre argument at best.

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 10:10 AM

Just because a system is open doesn't mean it can't be at an equilibrium plus the more one cites "feedback loops" to show (what? how can you say "loop" without implying an equilibrium?) that nobody knows what's going on the more it suggests that everybody does know perfectly well that if you fiddle with the parameters you are going to push the system to a different equilibrium. I don't see why pretending that this is not all perfectly obvious is such a good idea.

If this were any other system, it would be perfectly clear that you can't mess with a major parameter and expect the effect to be damped out.

The fact that there are points in the regime where CO2 behaves in ways that are "out of step" (again as with damping, implying an equilibruim) just suggests that it is one of the more sensitive parameters and is all the more reason not to blythely assume you can push it all over with no effects.

Ummm... You have no idea what 'equilibrium' from thermodynamical standpoint means, do you? An open system can't per definition be in equilibrium. It can be in a stable position if the input and output energies remain constant (which in this case they are not).
'Feedback' doesn't imply 'equilibrium'. It means there are parameters that can drive one another and thus amplify the effect.
'Damping' doesn't imply 'equilibrium'. It means that there are parameters that can limit the impact of other parameters.
And who said CO2 was a major driver of climate? This is the assumption your whole arguement rests on. But you can't say it is a major driver and you can't mess with it because it is a major driver unless you can actually show it is a major driver. And this is the bottom line of the arguement.

If they are worried about being insulted, perhaps they should make the effort to grasp the simple linkage.

If a man falls out of a boat over and over because sitting down is too difficult for him, I leave the excuse to him because I can only suggest that perhaps sitting down is the best way to avoid falling out of the boat.
When a layman says what professionals can and can't understand in their field, I have no other word but bs. People can be wrong in their theories or whatever, but to suggest they can't grasp a simple concept...

benbradley

12-16-2008, 10:36 AM

...
And who said CO2 was a major driver of climate?
Al Gore said it, I believe it, that settles it! :e2tongue:

Let's all be nice now, or I'll bring out The C02cats.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 05:11 PM

You can't prove anything from an abstract. I don't have a subscription or $15.00 to pay for just the article.

Try not to post abstracts.

In fact...on this topic I'm not finding anything but abstracts posted on the internet. None of these include conclusions.

My point is that as far back as the Cambrian you can use Oxygen isotopes to track temperatures.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 05:15 PM

This is pretty much dead on.

The biggest problem many people have when preaching the Gospel of AGW is that they think they understand and grasp the complexity of the Earth's constantly changing weather patterns. Using the term 'equilibrium' is about a pointless as a bowl of jello.

Equilibruim? On whose time scale.

I don't understand this invocation of complexity. For all questions about paleoclimates at least as far back as the Cambrian an increase in Carbon in the atmosphere is associated with hotter climates and a decrease is associated with cooling. Why would there suddenly be new complexity in the world just since people started using thermometers?

Higgins

12-16-2008, 05:18 PM

Exactly.

I found the statement disturbing. So we don't have to know any of the facts, just know that nature was in equilibrium, and now it's not, and we humans are to blame.

Bizarre argument at best.

I've been careful not to use "nature" as a part of my argument. In fact it is usually the "complexity" argument that uses "nature" to suggest that what is happening with global warming is "natural" and therefore nothing to worry about.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 05:28 PM

Ummm... You have no idea what 'equilibrium' from thermodynamical standpoint means, do you? An open system can't per definition be in equilibrium. It can be in a stable position if the input and output energies remain constant (which in this case they are not).
'Feedback' doesn't imply 'equilibrium'. It means there are parameters that can drive one another and thus amplify the effect.
'Damping' doesn't imply 'equilibrium'. It means that there are parameters that can limit the impact of other parameters.
And who said CO2 was a major driver of climate? This is the assumption your whole arguement rests on. But you can't say it is a major driver and you can't mess with it because it is a major driver unless you can actually show it is a major driver. And this is the bottom line of the arguement.

When a layman says what professionals can and can't understand in their field, I have no other word but bs. People can be wrong in their theories or whatever, but to suggest they can't grasp a simple concept...

The simple concept is that increasing carbon in the atmosphere has been associated with increasing global temperature since at least the Cambrian.
The fact that a weird assemblage of red herrings can be dragged in to suggest (what? things are complex? it's all natural? what?) we are in some special state of "complexity" now that people have thermometers is just a puzzling example of problems that people have adjusting to change.

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 05:45 PM

The simple concept is that increasing carbon in the atmosphere has been associated with increasing global temperature since at least the Cambrian.
The fact that a weird assemblage of red herrings can be dragged in to suggest (what? things are complex? it's all natural? what?) we are in some special state of "complexity" now that people have thermometers is just a puzzling example of problems that people have adjusting to change.
See, there is a problem. Increase in CO2 wasn't associated with increase in temperature. It is the other way around -- temperature drives the CO2 levels through absorbtion/release of CO2 by the oceans. The CO2 levels trail temperature by a couple of hundred years. At least it has been that way untill a hundred years or so. You can probably argue that greenhouse effect amplified the phenomena through feedback loop, but that's about it. Based on past ages you can't argue that increases in CO2 cause increase in temperature. You can't even calculate the sensitivity of the climate to increases of CO2, because the function is not reversable.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 06:32 PM

See, there is a problem. Increase in CO2 wasn't associated with increase in temperature. It is the other way around -- temperature drives the CO2 levels through absorbtion/release of CO2 by the oceans. The CO2 levels trail temperature by a couple of hundred years. At least it has been that way untill a hundred years or so. You can probably argue that greenhouse effect amplified the phenomena through feedback loop, but that's about it. Based on past ages you can't argue that increases in CO2 cause increase in temperature. You can't even calculate the sensitivity of the climate to increases of CO2, because the function is not reversable.

There's no such problem that I could find in looking at the actual data. I just looked at a selection of the ice core graphs and CO2 concentrations track right along with the temperature.

For example:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

Of course this guy says that "Global Warming" started at the middle of the last Ice Age (not a surprise). The CO2 and temperature do track very closely in any case.

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 07:09 PM

There's no such problem that I could find in looking at the actual data. I just looked at a selection of the ice core graphs and CO2 concentrations track right along with the temperature.

For example:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

Of course this guy says that "Global Warming" started at the middle of the last Ice Age (not a surprise). The CO2 and temperature do track very closely in any case.
It is a very well known fact. If you look at thousands of years of data, the lag of a couple of hundred years would be unnoticeble (in the graph). As I said, the explanation is accepted by all -- sceptics and proponents of GW alike. Oceans are the biggest sinks for CO2 (in fact, if it weren't for them, only the CO2 produced by the cars without everything else would be enough to explain the rise in CO2 levels). The water absorbs CO2 when it cools and lets it out when it heats up. Since the oceans are a giant mass of water with enormous heat capacity, it takes time for them to heat up, even if the atmosphere already did. So, they release CO2 slowly and this is why CO2 concentrations lag behind the temperatures. This is true for the pre industial times, when there were no other sources of CO2, but nature.

Here is the link for you. It is from AGW proponents, but they admit that the CO2 lags temperature
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1078758). There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
and another one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
bolding mine

robeiae

12-16-2008, 08:44 PM

I don't understand this invocation of complexity. For all questions about paleoclimates at least as far back as the Cambrian an increase in Carbon in the atmosphere is associated with hotter climates and a decrease is associated with cooling. Why would there suddenly be new complexity in the world just since people started using thermometers?
There isn't any "new" complexity. The point is that the climate is a complex system. And as a matter of course, such a system has no equilibrium point.

Complex systems are termed such because the various elements of the system interact to produce effects not fully apparent or predictable from looking at the elements.

Complex systems are usually open systems, as well. Such is the case for the climate: it's not bounded, temporally or spatially; energy and matter leave and enter the system irregularly.

The idea that there are equilibrium levels for various elements therein--like CO2 levels--is nonsense. sure, there might be levels that are preferable, base on given criteria, but so what? We can't control the system and changes we make will not--because it is complex--have fully predictable results.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 08:56 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

and another one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
[/size]
bolding mine

There isn't any "new" complexity. The point is that the climate is a complex system. And as a matter of course, such a system has no equilibrium point.

Complex systems are termed such because the various elements of the system interact to produce effects not fully apparent or predictable from looking at the elements.

Complex systems are usually open systems, as well. Such is the case for the climate: it's not bounded, temporally or spatially; energy and matter leave and enter the system irregularly.

The idea that there are equilibrium levels for various elements therein--like CO2 levels--is nonsense. sure, there might be levels that are preferable, base on given criteria, but so what? We can't control the system and changes we make will not--because it is complex--have fully predictable results.

The articles dm... cites go out of their way to say that CO2 does cause global warming. Moreover, the "lag" happens after CO2 and temperature both go up together. What is "laggy" is that CO2 continues to climb after the initial heating episode. It happens over and over and throughout all the data and it is more predictable than anything else I can think of in terms of events that have fossil records extending over 600 million years.

Dale Emery

12-16-2008, 09:45 PM

There isn't any "new" complexity. The point is that the climate is a complex system. And as a matter of course, such a system has no equilibrium point.

I disagree with "as a matter of course". Living things are complex systems that have equilibrium along any number of variables.

It seems to me that if a variable in a complex system is staying within some range, even for a short period of time, there must be some mechanism that keeps the variable within that range. Regularity implies mechanism.

Complexity doesn't mean there's no regularity. And it doesn't (necessarily) mean that the variables or the consequences of changing a variable are utterly unpredictable. It does mean that prediction requires far more than a casual understanding of the mechanisms that regulate the variables.

Dale

robeiae

12-16-2008, 09:53 PM

I disagree with "as a matter of course". Living things are complex systems that have equilibrium along any number of variables.A dynamic equilibrium, perhaps. But I do not think the equilibrium of the moment is fixed across time. Entropy is still in play.

But I'm willing to accept that I overstated it, somewhat. It doesn't change my position on the global climate--as a system--having no equilibrium point, with regard to a given element of it.

It seems to me that if a variable in a complex system is staying within some range, even for a short period of time, there must be some mechanism that keeps the variable within that range. Regularity implies mechanism.Oh, I agree there can be regularity within some range of time and space. Sure. But it's not a fixed regularity.

Complexity doesn't mean there's no regularity. And it doesn't (necessarily) mean that the variables or the consequences of changing a variable are utterly unpredictable. It does mean that prediction requires far more than a casual understanding of the mechanisms that regulate the variables.
"Utterly"? Maybe not...but over time, there is no assurance of predictability, beyond the ultimate demise of the system.

But you're right, insofar as what predictability there is that can be gleaned is not a simple think to derive, at all.

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 10:03 PM

The articles dm... cites go out of their way to say that CO2 does cause global warming. Moreover, the "lag" happens after CO2 and temperature both go up together. What is "laggy" is that CO2 continues to climb after the initial heating episode. It happens over and over and throughout all the data and it is more predictable than anything else I can think of in terms of events that have fossil records extending over 600 million years.
Both sites are pro AGW. I specifically chose those because it shows that the lag is agreed upon by both sides. Both , proponents and sceptics of AGW agree that there is a signifficant lag between temperature and CO2 levels in the past, which means CO2 couldn't have been an initial trigger for the temperature rise. What happened afterwards is debatable. Proponents of AGW claim CO2 levels signifficantly increased the temperature rise through greenhouse feedback loop. Opponents of AGW disagree. In any case, your claim that by just looking at past data it is apparent that CO2 drove the temperature is bunk. You can disagree with the proposed theories, agree with the consensus models, whatever. Essentially calling people who disagree (especially those who are signifficantly more knowledgeble than you on the subject) ignorant is... well, for the lack of a better term, ignorant.

Higgins

12-16-2008, 10:36 PM

Both sites are pro AGW. I specifically chose those because it shows that the lag is agreed upon by both sides. Both , proponents and sceptics of AGW agree that there is a signifficant lag between temperature and CO2 levels in the past, which means CO2 couldn't have been an initial trigger for the temperature rise. What happened afterwards is debatable. Proponents of AGW claim CO2 levels signifficantly increased the temperature rise through greenhouse feedback loop. Opponents of AGW disagree. In any case, your claim that by just looking at past data it is apparent that CO2 drove the temperature is bunk. You can disagree with the proposed theories, agree with the consensus models, whatever. Essentially calling people who disagree (especially those who are signifficantly more knowledgeble than you on the subject) ignorant is... well, for the lack of a better term, ignorant.

It's actually pretty clear that CO2 increase stays right with the average temperature increase. If you look at the actual data and read what the articles actually say that is clear. For example CO2 spikes lagged the antarctic loss of ice but came before the arctic loss of ice in Termination III in the Ice Age chronology. Ie the CO2 increase was between the two ice loss events. A cited abstract reads (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf):

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Tirjasdyn

12-16-2008, 11:37 PM

dmytryp

12-16-2008, 11:53 PM

It's actually pretty clear that CO2 increase stays right with the average temperature increase. If you look at the actual data and read what the articles actually say that is clear. For example CO2 spikes lagged the antarctic loss of ice but came before the arctic loss of ice in Termination III in the Ice Age chronology. Ie the CO2 increase was between the two ice loss events. A cited abstract reads (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf):

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

I see this is going nowhere. So, for the last time, since I already posted this
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations.
What more do you want to define CO2 lagging temperature? Once something else triggers the warming, than after the temps increase, CO2 levels start to increase. You can't say this is evidence of CO2 driving the temperature. It is as simple as that.

Higgins

12-17-2008, 12:13 AM

I see this is going nowhere. So, for the last time, since I already posted this
[/size][/b]
What more do you want to define CO2 lagging temperature? Once something else triggers the warming, than after the temps increase, CO2 levels start to increase. You can't say this is evidence of CO2 driving the temperature. It is as simple as that.

A lag in some Antarctic data doesn't show that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere don't cause average temperatures to rise all over the globe as is attested from 600 million years worth of other data. Even the Antarctic data is:

1) not all that clear even on their own
2) on the graphs there are lockstep rises in CO2 and temperature and what seems to be counted as a lag is just that the CO2 goes on rising after the initial shift
3) even for those events where the Antartic CO2 supposedly "lags" the CO2 signature still comes before the arctic deglaciation.

Monkey

12-18-2008, 07:25 PM

Geesh. Where to start?

I guess with a story from MSN this morning:

http://green.msn.com/Home/Global-Warming-Mythbusters/?gt1=45002

First Slide:
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

It also links to this:
http://www.edf.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

Dr. James Wang
SCIENTIST, CLIMATE AND AIR PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer
PROFESSOR OF GEOSCIENCES AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

[...]

This summary provides a brief overview of the most common myths regarding
global warming. For a more comprehensive and in-depth discussion of the
scientific issues, please see the main body of the report.While written for a
general audience, the main body of the report includes citations of peer-reviewed
scientific literature.

Keep in mind that all the well-respected peer-reviewed scientific journals have come to the conclusion that AGW exists.

Earlier on this thread, DgiHarris said:

ANd don't let the term 'computer model' fool you. It is sexy, but computer models are only as good as the theory they are based on. And trust me when I say our understanding of weather physics leaves a lot to be desired. I would say that our ability to build a comprehensive model on Earth weather physics is equivalent to a group of ten year olds designing a Boeing 777 pasenger plane.

All this talk about "weather physics" seems to be missing an important point. From my first link, slide six:

MYTH:
Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT:
Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

Willfulone said:

There seems to be increase in CO2. True. But that is not the only thing that affects warming. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. And it is not known how the feedback loops work in determining how much heat Water Vapor traps and holds in the warming process. So, to look at a small portion when the rest (the largest portion) of the equasion is a big unknown is not really taking all the facts into consideration.

Which is just supporting another very common misconception: that because water vapor traps more heat, it's a bigger problem than CO2. The articles I linked explain that water vapor is part of the natural warming/cooling cycle and a necessary factor to life on our planet. You can say the same of CO2, except that recent human activity has put too much CO2 into the air...the water vapor then magnifies the effect of the CO2, causing our output to loom even larger. We can't (and wouldn't want to) eliminate all water vapor or CO2 from our atmosphere, but excessive amounts of CO2, amplified by water vapor, could very well prove disastrous.

Cethklein said:
Agreed. This goes back to the first point I made. Many of those who claim global warming is real are politicians who want to use it to make money. But there are also reputable scientists who still believe it's possible that it's real. Global warming is a theory. That means it hasn't be proven OR disproven.

Many, yes. But they are simply agreeing with every major peer-reviewed scientific journal and the vast majority of climate scientists. Yes, you can find scientists that disagree, but most of the skeptics or deniers are not *climate* scientists. People are going on and on about how complex global warming is, and then figuring anyone who has studied any field of science is credible when it comes to AGW.

MOST reputable scientists believe that it's real. Especially if you're only counting CLIMATE scientists.

And yes, Global Warming is a scientific theory. So is gravity. Physics is all scientific theory. In the realm of science, "theory" has a different meaning than in the common vernacular.

Earlier, people were talking about the Arctic being warmer in the past. From my first link:

MYTH:
Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT:
The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

Why am I relying on the same source for all this info? It's extremely easy. Easy for me, easy for you. If you want to see more links on global warming, just click on any of our previous AGW or GW debate links. There are a ton of them. But I haven't seen anyone change their mind yet, and I don't expect to. It's a matter of who you believe. If you think peer-reviewed scientific journals are all out to agree with one another and you're prone to use "Main-Stream Media" as a belittling term, you probably think AGW is a myth. If you think think that peer-reviewed scientific journals are a good way to learn scientific truth and don't mind getting news from sources such as CNN, then you probably believe AGW exists. :shrug:

Captshady

12-18-2008, 07:30 PM

The Question of Global Warming (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494)

Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html)

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)

Monkey

12-18-2008, 08:19 PM

The Question of Global Warming

Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

First link doesn't deny GW, or even AGW. It's basically a debate on the costs involved and just how big an issue GW really is. It does say that the skeptics (who it acknowledges are in the minority) should be listened to...not because they are correct, which it never implies, but because, as is said in the ancient motto of the Royal Society, "Nullius in Verba, which means, 'Nobody's word is final.'"

Second link. Three dudes complain after an AP story about global warming. They are:
David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
He's not a climate scientist and, in fact, denies that global warming exists AT ALL, making him pretty fringe on this issue.

Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho. Also not a climate scientist.

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, who said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. Note that he's an "emeritus" professor; retired or honorably discharged. I couldn't find anything that said what field he held his degree in.

Leave it to Fox to figure that these three dudes constitute some sort of scientific uprising.

Third link: this one's already been brought up...what three times? Four?...in this thread. They found 650 international scientists that have issue with one factor or another concerning AGW. Considering that the term "scientist" can include someone in ANY scientific field, no matter how unrelated to climate, and that they are talking about 650 scientists internationally, I'd say this shows how fringe the anti-global warming crowd really is.

Monkey

12-18-2008, 08:41 PM

There are a lot more links on both sides of the debate here, in the last argument we had over global warming:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118135&highlight=warming

Higgins

12-18-2008, 08:41 PM

Point is that the data saying what the temps have been since the Cambrian is not reliable.

So you would say that if the Oxygen isotopes show it was colder during an ice age in the Ordovician that we just don't know anything about ice ages in the Ordovician? Or what?

For example: http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/LateOrd.html

Higgins

12-18-2008, 08:48 PM

First link doesn't deny GW, or even AGW. It's basically a debate on the costs involved and just how big an issue GW really is. It does say that the skeptics (who it acknowledges are in the minority) should be listened to...not because they are correct, which it never implies, but because, as is said in the ancient motto of the Royal Society, "Nullius in Verba, which means, 'Nobody's word is final.'"

The Dyson article was quite good. Basically he says that there is no doubt that AGW is happening, he just doesn't think it is as big a problem as nuclear weapons and social injustice. I'm sure that in some ways there are bigger problems, but there are few problems that involve the whole planet that have as broad a spectrum of potential impacts and that could be addressed by potentially beneficial changes in the energy "food chain". The interesting thing about AGW is that the solutions could be quite constructive.

William Haskins

12-18-2008, 09:16 PM

a roundup of the top 10 dud global warming predictions of 2008:

a taste:

3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE

IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

"It's hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year)," fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University's polar science centre.

Tim Flannery also warned "this may be the Arctic's first ice-free year", and the ABC and Age got reporter Marian Wilkinson to go stare at the ice and wail: "Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes."

In fact, the Arctic's ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year's great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

Yet Barber is again in the news this month, predicting an ice-free Arctic now in six years. Did anyone ask him how he got his last prediction wrong?

Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24820442-5000117,00.html

Tirjasdyn

12-18-2008, 09:31 PM

So you would say that if the Oxygen isotopes show it was colder during an ice age in the Ordovician that we just don't know anything about ice ages in the Ordovician? Or what?

For example: http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/LateOrd.html

Sigh....try rereading my posts.

Don

12-18-2008, 09:37 PM

a roundup of the top 10 dud global warming predictions of 2008:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24820442-5000117,00.html
Great article. My favorite:

10. WE'LL BE HOTTER
SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.

In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.

That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: "Global warming has stopped for the last few years."

Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.

Monkey

12-18-2008, 09:39 PM

a roundup of the top 10 dud global warming predictions of 2008:

So is your point that global warming doesn't exist, or that it's hard to accurately project the changes brought about by global warming, or that there will always be some people who read the data and go overboard?

Honest question.

Monkey

12-18-2008, 09:47 PM

10. WE'LL BE HOTTER
SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.

In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.

That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: "Global warming has stopped for the last few years."

Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.

A quick google reveals that Nasa disagrees with this statement. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
(bolding mine)

And I disagree with the spelling of "sceptical". Is that a cross between a scepter and a receptacle? :D

William Haskins

12-18-2008, 09:53 PM

So is your point that global warming doesn't exist, or that it's hard to accurately project the changes brought about by global warming, or that there will always be some people who read the data and go overboard?

Honest question.

my take is that climate changes do occur, that we can do more (and should) to reduce emissions and fight for cleaner air, but that the orthodoxy that causes some people to buy any and all claims that support their fanaticism does more harm than good in terms of constructive discussion and solutions.

honest answer.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 09:56 PM

Sigh....try rereading my posts.

You say oxygen isotopes are unreliable (presumably as indicators of temperature). Well in the Ordovician the isotopes have an "excursion" that seems to coincide with an ice age. Does that mean ice ages were warmer in the Ordovician or colder or do the isotope ratios actually work and show the extent of ice age? Or that we "just don't know"? And what does "just don't know" mean when you are dealing with oxygen isotopes?

Don

12-18-2008, 09:59 PM

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:02 PM

my take is that climate changes do occur, that we can do more (and should) to reduce emissions and fight for cleaner air, but that the orthodoxy that causes some people to buy any and all claims that support their fanaticism do more harm than good in terms of constructive discussion and solutions.

honest answer.

So you're insisting on the importance and virtue of endlessly bugging anyone that thinks (as you do in fact) that scientific analyses are worth taking into account? Is it really always a good idea to nag people for thinking what you yourself think? Couldn't AGW be an exception to the need to nag?

Diana Hignutt

12-18-2008, 10:05 PM

So you're insisting on the importance and virtue of endlessly bugging anyone that thinks (as you do in fact) that scientific analyses are worth taking into account? Is it really always a good idea to nag people for thinking what you yourself think? Couldn't AGW be an exception to the need to nag?

That's not what he said...

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:07 PM

Yeah, what Haskins said.

And as for taking NASA's word for anything... To misquote (I'm sure) Larry Niven / Jerry Pournelle in Fallen Angels, "If it weren't for F*ing NASA we'd be living on the moon."

Never has there been better proof of the poison of bureaucratic inactivity and fingerpointing. They'll say whatever they need to say to cover their butts.

Well, I'm not running NASA but are you agreeing with Haskins on grounds that it is a good idea to give people a lot of crap about things on the off chance that some of them might have harbored thoughts that you think might be "fanatical"? Frankly this seems like scraping the bottom of things to complain about and the supposed fanaticism hidden in the breasts of the targets of Haskins (and possibly your) nagging skepticism has its basis in how desperate you are to find something to complain about.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:10 PM

That's not what he said...

Right. He agrees with the actuality of global warming but he senses some "fanaticism" in those (like him) who think there is something going on with the atmosphere.

And now you and Don and Haskins are going to bind together to fight "fanaticism" by performing some nagging skepticism....though in fact you find the scientific analyses on which the AGW models are based to be reasonable.

William Haskins

12-18-2008, 10:11 PM

Don

12-18-2008, 10:11 PM

No, I primarily complain about the whole AGW issue because I see the AlGorians using it as a political platform to justify more government intrusion into our lives, more excuses for globalization, and more taking from the successful producers to spend on their own half-baked schemes.

Don

12-18-2008, 10:12 PM

Diana Hignutt

12-18-2008, 10:15 PM

Right. He agrees with the actuality of global warming but he senses some "fanaticism" in those (like him) who think there is something going on with the atmosphere.

And now you and Don and Haskins are going to bind together to fight "fanaticism" by performing some nagging skepticism....though in fact you find the scientific analyses on which the AGW models are based to be reasonable.

Last time I checked, skepticism was the friend of science. I'll remind you that at one time the majority of the scientific community believed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe.

BTW, I find that the scientific analyses that debunk AGW to be reasonable as well.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:23 PM

Last time I checked, skepticism was the friend of science. I'll remind you that at one time the majority of the scientific community believed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe.

BTW, I find that the scientific analyses that debunk AGW to be reasonable as well.

When was there a scientific consensus that the earth was flat?

And why apply the language of "debunking" to an active area of research like AGW? What exactly is it that needs to be debunked in the science? It's obviously not say 500 papers in Nature. I mean nobody is going to debunk the coherence of climate models covering the last 600 million years without coming up with models at least as good and all those models will have to include what happens when a lot of CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

There's nothing scientific about the kind of skepticism that advocates giving up on figuring out what is going on and the only methods for figuring out what is going on have to incorporate some model of what happens when a lot of CO2 goes into the atmosphere. There just is no room for debunking at this point on this particular topic.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:26 PM

i think it is important to separate independent scientific data and develop a gameplan that transitions us into a less polluting species.

i also think its important to subvert and ridicule those who try to turn global warming into a cultish farce of groupthink, especially when the touchy-feely motives they broadcast to the gullible are in stark contrast to the real and mercenary political motives that are actually driving them.

No, I primarily complain about the whole AGW issue because I see the AlGorians using it as a political platform to justify more government intrusion into our lives, more excuses for globalization, and more taking from the successful producers to spend on their own half-baked schemes.

And he shoots and scores AGAIN! :)

So none of your objections to AGW have anything to do with scientific analysis of AGW...your "skepticism" is only aimed at what you perceive to be in the minds of other people who think the same things you do about AGW.
Perhaps you should consider how it is you come to conclusions about what is motivating other people.

William Haskins

12-18-2008, 10:27 PM

There just is no room for debunking at this point on this particular topic.

nor is there room for blind acceptance based on the argument that skeptism might erode a noble cause, and therefore 'tis better to take every claim at face value for the greater good.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 10:35 PM

nor is there room for blind acceptance based on the argument that skeptism might erode a noble cause, and therefore 'tis better to take every claim at face value for the greater good.

Of course blind acceptance is always bad, but I don't think anyone on this subforum is doing any blind accepting. If you want to save the masses from their blindness you'll have to get your own TV show or something. Or get a job teaching science.

William Haskins

12-18-2008, 10:36 PM

i don't want to save the masses from anything, sir. i am one man with one mind and one voice.

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 10:45 PM

I'll remind you that at one time the majority of the scientific community believed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe.

I'm going to have to jump in and remind everyone that this isn't quite true, but rather a historical myth so widely-believed it is held up as fact.

The heliocentric model of the solar system was proposed in the time the Greeks by Aristarchus among others. The geocentric model was preferred back then, but there was debate, up through the time of the Ptolemic model of a geocentric solar system. Even during the reign of the Ptolemic model of an earth-centered solar system, the heliocentric model was viewed by many scientists and astronomers as a philosophic problem rather than a mathematical one based on observations. With observational data at the time, both models worked equally well. In Medieval Europe, Copernicus proposed a full heliocentric model. The opposition to this theory came not from scientists, however, but the church. Many know the story about Galileo's persecution for suggesting the sun was the center of the solar system. It is true many in the church thought the idea heretical. But many do not know that the Pope at the time was in fact an ardent supporter of Galileo's and allowed him to publish an book proposing the arguments for and against the heliocentric theory, and that Galileo used the Pope's own words in the mouth of the geocentric-supporting character, "Simplico," thereby insulting and publicly ridiculing the Pope and the church. This was a major reason for the Pope turning against him and forbidding his teaching of heliocentrism.

And the "earth is flat" idea was almost never true to begin with. Again, as early as the Greeks, it was accepted that the earth was round, and many Greek astronomers measured is circumference. Even in Medieval Europe it was not a popular idea among the common folk, considering nautical instruments of the time relied on the earth's curvature to work. No one thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the world. What they did think was that Columbus was an idiot for severely underestimating the radius of the earth, relying on incorrect calculations of the earth's curvature that were largely disregarded by scientists, misinterpreting several maps' scale of a "mile" to be the Italian mile, which was shorter, and ultimately thinking the earth's circumference was almost half of what it really is.

Captshady

12-18-2008, 10:57 PM

Hrm, was there a consensus that eggs were bad for you?
That butter was bad for you/no good for you/no bad for you?
That carbs were the answer to a low fat diet?
That dead dinosaurs were where oil comes from?

Captshady

12-18-2008, 10:58 PM

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:14 PM

Diana Hignutt

12-18-2008, 11:16 PM

I'm going to have to jump in and remind everyone that this isn't quite true, but rather a historical myth so widely-believed it is held up as fact.

The heliocentric model of the solar system was proposed in the time the Greeks by Aristarchus among others. The geocentric model was preferred back then, but there was debate, up through the time of the Ptolemic model of a geocentric solar system. Even during the reign of the Ptolemic model of an earth-centered solar system, the heliocentric model was viewed by many scientists and astronomers as a philosophic problem rather than a mathematical one based on observations. With observational data at the time, both models worked equally well. In Medieval Europe, Copernicus proposed a full heliocentric model. The opposition to this theory came not from scientists, however, but the church. Many know the story about Galileo's persecution for suggesting the sun was the center of the solar system. It is true many in the church thought the idea heretical. But many do not know that the Pope at the time was in fact an ardent supporter of Galileo's and allowed him to publish an book proposing the arguments for and against the heliocentric theory, and that Galileo used the Pope's own words in the mouth of the geocentric-supporting character, "Simplico," thereby insulting and publicly ridiculing the Pope and the church. This was a major reason for the Pope turning against him and forbidding his teaching of heliocentrism.

And the "earth is flat" idea was almost never true to begin with. Again, as early as the Greeks, it was accepted that the earth was round, and many Greek astronomers measured is circumference. Even in Medieval Europe it was not a popular idea among the common folk, considering nautical instruments of the time relied on the earth's curvature to work. No one thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the world. What they did think was that Columbus was an idiot for severely underestimating the radius of the earth, relying on incorrect calculations of the earth's curvature that were largely disregarded by scientists, misinterpreting several maps' scale of a "mile" to be the Italian mile, which was shorter, and ultimately thinking the earth's circumference was almost half of what it really is.

Fair enough, I deserved that. I should have phrased my point as thus:

Virtually every majority-held scientific theory has historically proven to be, at the very least, inadequate (as in Newtonian mechanics or the original conceptions of atomic theory) or false (Eugenics).

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 11:16 PM

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:18 PM

An exchange of letters with Dyson and Others (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21811)

Good stuff. This should curb the fanatical tendency of the masses to find scientific analyses unconvincing.

Cyia

12-18-2008, 11:24 PM

Virtually every majority-held scientific theory has historically proven to be, at the very least, inadequate (as in Newtonian mechanics or the original conceptions of atomic theory) or false (Eugenics).

Theories are just that - the best guess they can make for the information at their disposal. People too often treat things as concrete fact when knowledge evolves over time as technology allows us to get a better picture.

(from this point, I'm pulling out of memory of science class, so take it for what it's worth.)

"Experts" aren't always the know all end all of their area of focus. Look at D/C vs. A/C current. A/C is the preferable method, but at the time (Tesla?) came up with it, the scholars of the day all toed the line with the reigning expert. (Edison?)

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:26 PM

Fair enough, I deserved that. I should have phrased my point as thus:

Virtually every majority-held scientific theory has historically proven to be, at the very least, inadequate (as in Newtonian mechanics or the original conceptions of atomic theory) or false (Eugenics).

It is always puzzling when the achievements of science (such as GR) are somehow supposed to discredit science as a source of valid models of reality. Surely it is only on the basis of further work in science that earlier models have been discarded.

Rather than seeing GR as discrediting scientific analyses, one might draw the conclusion that scientific analyses are likely to improve scientific models and that methods that are shown to be wrong are discarded. For example there are no Eugenic methods used in climate models.

Moreover, if scientific analyses allow for the progressive improvement of models then the overall trend of models should be to better and better approximations of what is happening in reality, which suggests that skepticism about the basic facts of AGW is not a useful view of reality.

Joe270

12-18-2008, 11:37 PM

MYTH:
Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT:
The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

This is precisely the sort of garbage put out by the AGW people which really ticks me off. There is no 'fact' there, indeed, this is what the whole argument is about. But they want to end any and all discussion on the matter, just like when they said 'the argument on GW is over'.

The AGW people are trying their utmost best to squash any speech, scientific findings, or facts which doesn't fit into their 'model'.

That alone makes their views suspect.

Captshady

12-18-2008, 11:38 PM

You are talking about popular belief, not scientific consensus.

Sorry, that list came from "Research experts." For 20 years, I don't recall a single claim that oil was NOT a fossil fuel.

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 11:38 PM

Theories are just that - the best guess they can make for the information at their disposal. People too often treat things as concrete fact when knowledge evolves over time as technology allows us to get a better picture.

Gotta jump in here again.

You're buying the definition of "theory" pushed by Creationists and various other deniers of scientific theories.

In science, "theory" refers to a model that is strongly supported by evidence and generally accepted as fact by the scientific community. It's a lot more than a "best guess."

You are referring to hypotheses.

"Experts" aren't always the know all end all of their area of focus. Look at D/C vs. A/C current. A/C is the preferable method, but at the time (Tesla?) came up with it, the scholars of the day all toed the line with the reigning expert. (Einstein?)

DC vs. AC current isn't really a scientific dispute so much as one of everyday application and practicality. We scientists don't know much about everyday application and practicality ;)

And you got Tesla right. It was Edison, not Einstein.

Everyone knows that Tesla > Edison. :D

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 11:40 PM

Sorry, that list came from "Research experts." For 20 years, I don't recall a single claim that oil was NOT a fossil fuel.

From wikipedia:

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past.

Oil (petroleum) is a fossil fuel. There's more to fossils than dinosaur bones.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:44 PM

This is precisely the sort of garbage put out by the AGW people which really ticks me off. There is no 'fact' there, indeed, this is what the whole argument is about. But they want to end any and all discussion on the matter, just like when they said 'the argument on GW is over'.

The AGW people are trying their utmost best to squash any speech, scientific findings, or facts which doesn't fit into their 'model'.

That alone makes their views suspect.

I don't think there are any "AGW people". That seems to me to be an imaginary group. As far as I can tell there are just a number of scientists pursuing their research interests in an area of active research.

It's actually the data and the models that one should look into. Getting upset because some imaginary group is doing imaginary things to some other imaginay group does not seem all that productive.

Captshady

12-18-2008, 11:47 PM

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 11:49 PM

I know a professor here who was on the panel of scientists that won that Nobel with Gore who was a major contributor of the research. The Syndicate of AGW Conspiracists has so far left him out of the loop w/r/t the subterfuge and collusion.

kuwisdelu

12-18-2008, 11:53 PM

And here's (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+not+fossil+fuel&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=oil+%22not+f) a boat load of other opinions. You're too young to remember the incessant claims that it came from dinosaurs, but your little link there isn't going to convince me that I saw otherwise. No amount of saying "consensus" vs "fad" is going to change what I've personally witnessed and read. There was a massive consensus by researchers and doctors alike that are now bunk. Consensus means nothing.

Oh I see.

You're not referring to its source being primarily dead plant material rather than dinosaur bones, which contribute little.

Rather, you're referring to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) which has little evidence to back it up, marginal support in the scientific community, and has yet to be successfully used by any geologists to discover a petroleum deposit. Convenient idea, though.

Joe270

12-18-2008, 11:53 PM

It's actually the data and the models that one should look into. Getting upset because some imaginary group is doing imaginary things to some other imaginay group does not seem all that productive.

What data and what models? If the folks presenting that info are imaginary, then the information must be as well.

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:54 PM

And here's (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+not+fossil+fuel&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=oil+%22not+f) a boat load of other opinions. You're too young to remember the incessant claims that it came from dinosaurs, but your little link there isn't going to convince me that I saw otherwise. No amount of saying "consensus" vs "fad" is going to change what I've personally witnessed and read. There was a massive consensus by researchers and doctors alike that are now bunk. Consensus means nothing.

How do groups of people make up their minds about anything if consensus means nothing?
Why would anyone who knows anything about oil or paleontology think that "oil comes from dinosaurs"? A lot of oil comes from Miocene sediments for example and how much biomass could ever have been in large animals? I don't see the point in accusing scientific analysis of ever having come up with such an idea or "consensus".

Cyia

12-18-2008, 11:55 PM

Gotta jump in here again.

You're buying the definition of "theory" pushed by Creationists and various other deniers of scientific theories.

In science, "theory" refers to a model that is strongly supported by evidence and generally accepted as fact by the scientific community. It's a lot more than a "best guess."

I said it was a best guess based on available information in the context of knowledge evolving. It is a guess, and when more information becomes available because technology advances, the theory will be tweaked accordingly. Theories can't be concrete facts because they have to be able to assimilate new information as it arises.

DC vs. AC current isn't really a scientific dispute so much as one of everyday application and practicality. We scientists don't know much about everyday application and practicality ;)

And you got Tesla right. It was Edison, not Einstein.

Everyone knows that Tesla > Edison. :D

It was a major dispute when it first became an issue in the public. (and YAY me... I knew it was something with an "E" ;). Physics was never my strong point. I just liked that class because we got to blow stuff up.)

Higgins

12-18-2008, 11:55 PM

What data and what models? If the folks presenting that info are imaginary, then the information must be as well.

Yep. It's all in your head.

Captshady

12-18-2008, 11:56 PM

I wonder why people ignore what they see? For fricken 20 years, we've been told incessantly that with every passing day, the earth is getting hotter. Yet how many MORE record heats have there been since we've been recording it? I forget how many conferences on GW were snowed out.

Each time an event happens that goes against the "consensus", then the consensus explains it away with bullshit, and people follow it, much like the pawns that follow the televangelist. El Niño, La Niña, and melted ice bergs. While they're releasing all this research, they should also publish where their funding comes from (hint: government grants and public donations from "non profit" groups). If there's no fear, there's no funding, no salary, no job.

mscelina

12-18-2008, 11:59 PM

:roll:

You are aware that in moderate climates, such as our own, the warmer the climate is the more snow there is in the winter, right?

Captshady

12-18-2008, 11:59 PM

How do groups of people make up their minds about anything if consensus means nothing?
Why would anyone who knows anything about oil or paleontology think that "oil comes from dinosaurs"? A lot of oil comes from Miocene sediments for example and how much biomass could ever have been in large animals? I don't see the point in accusing scientific analysis of ever having come up with such an idea or "consensus".

Consensus has been wrong, many times. Consensus alone is NOT rule, NOT law, and NOT proven scientific concept. ESPECIALLY when they get paid more for the publics "awareness" of an issue. Google "Science now knows that", in quotes. You'll see a crap load of mistakes of consensus.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:00 AM

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:01 AM

I said it was a best guess based on available information in the context of knowledge evolving. It is a guess, and when more information becomes available because technology advances, the theory will be tweaked accordingly. Theories can't be concrete facts because they have to be able to assimilate new information as it arises.)

Aye, they're not concrete facts.

I have an issue with the word "guess" to describe a scientific theory, since it undermines the rigorous scrutiny of a hypothesis and the concrete data that supports or refutes it before it becomes a theory.

I wonder why people ignore what they see? For fricken 20 years, we've been told incessantly that with every passing day, the earth is getting hotter. Yet how many MORE record heats have there been since we've been recording it? I forget how many conferences on GW were snowed out.

Weather != climate.

Joe270

12-19-2008, 12:02 AM

Yep. It's all in your head.

Actually, it's all in your head. I don't buy the GW garbage.

The fact is the earth is getting cooler. It will continue to cool until it becomes a lifeless chunk of frozen rock drifting through space.

I predicted this winter would debunk most of the GW 'predictions', and it is doing so in spades. By next summer, we'll have all the GW prognosticators backpedaling and denying their statements and scurrying to find more 'evidence'.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:04 AM

Weather != climate.

And the consensus again is where? Where, in allllllllll the fear mongering, did the consensus say, "well the earth is getting warmer daily, starting in 1960-whatever, yet you won't notice a fricken difference."

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:05 AM

:roll:

You are aware that in moderate climates, such as our own, the warmer the climate is the more snow there is in the winter, right?

Since when, EXACTLY sweetheart? Give me a link that shows when the consensus agreed on this.

Precipitation is definitely not my area of expertise, but here's a hint:

How often does it snow in Antarctica?

Here's another hint:

What is the largest desert in the world?

blacbird

12-19-2008, 12:06 AM

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:06 AM

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:07 AM

Precipitation is definitely not my area of expertise, but here's a hint:

How often does it snow in Antarctica?

Here's another hint:

What is the largest desert in the world?

By your own logic, it's a fallacy, sans a consensus. But here's a question. What's the history since the dawn of mankind of the "largest desert in the world?" How long have we been tracking it? How long have we been measure snow fall in Antarctica?

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:13 AM

By your own logic, it's a fallacy, sans a consensus.

How do you mean?

Higgins

12-19-2008, 12:14 AM

Actually, it's all in your head. I don't buy the GW garbage.

The fact is the earth is getting cooler. It will continue to cool until it becomes a lifeless chunk of frozen rock drifting through space.

I predicted this winter would debunk most of the GW 'predictions', and it is doing so in spades. By next summer, we'll have all the GW prognosticators backpedaling and denying their statements and scurrying to find more 'evidence'.

I doubt it, but if CO2 stops absorbing and emitting as it does, you can rewrite all the text books to explain how the fundamentals of photons and molecules have changed.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:15 AM

How do you mean?

You're supporting the idea that consensus infallible, and the only proof. Proof beyond what you see/feel.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 12:16 AM

By your own logic, it's a fallacy, sans a consensus. But here's a question. What's the history since the dawn of mankind of the "largest desert in the world?" How long have we been tracking it? How long have we been measure snow fall in Antarctica?

What's your point? If there is no evidence of anything then its of no importance if there is no evidence of any particular thing?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:21 AM

What's your point? If there is no evidence of anything then its of no importance if there is no evidence of any particular thing?

No. It's not of "no importance", but it damned sure isn't FACT. It doesn't give anyone the right to claim it as fact, nor to tax me or anyone else until there's PROOF.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 12:26 AM

No. It's not of "no importance", but it damned sure isn't FACT. It doesn't give anyone the right to claim it as fact, nor to tax me or anyone else until there's PROOF.

Oh, its your taxes you're worried about. But apparently you agree that if you could somehow be convinced that the world works in a certain way, you'd be happy to pay taxes to avoid some possibly global negative consequences. So it's a question of how happy you are to be paying your taxes.

Cyia

12-19-2008, 12:29 AM

By your own logic, it's a fallacy, sans a consensus. But here's a question. What's the history since the dawn of mankind of the "largest desert in the world?" How long have we been tracking it? How long have we been measure snow fall in Antarctica?

Unless you're saying that the poles weren't the poles at some point in earth's history, it doesn't matter how long we've been able to measure snow fall.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:30 AM

Oh, its your taxes you're worried about.

No, it goes beyond that (http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/12/listen-up-religious-leftists.html).

But apparently you agree that if you could somehow be convinced that the world works in a certain way, you'd be happy to pay taxes to avoid some possibly global negative consequences. So it's a question of how happy you are to be paying your taxes.

No, it's a question of where their funding comes from, and a matter of their claims not coming to fruition. It's a matter of what they're doing to the scientific community as a whole, the next time there's a new scientific crisis, and the scientific community needs the ears of the world.

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:32 AM

You're supporting the idea that consensus infallible, and the only proof. Proof beyond what you see/feel.

I don't see how pointing out that Antarctica's snowfall is small enough to be considered the world's biggest desert has anything to do with consensus and Antarctica is damn cold. I was just supporting Celina's point.

Don't trust what you see or feel. Don't trust consensus, either, that's fine.

Trust data.

But don't rely on local weather data to make inference about climate as a whole, when weather is not indicative of climate.

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:34 AM

Unless you're saying that the poles weren't the poles at some point in earth's history, it doesn't matter how long we've been able to measure snow fall.

Actually, there is a hypothesis of polar shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_shift).

But like I said, I'm not sure what this has to do with the original point of weather being distinctly different from climate.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 12:39 AM

I don't see how pointing out that Antarctica's snowfall is small enough to be considered the world's biggest desert has anything to do with consensus. I was just supporting Celina's point.

Using snowfall level/biggest desert to support AGW is bunk, because the data hasn't been collected long enough.

Trust data.

Okay, it's 70 degrees outside, per the thermometer. Am I to assume by my "data" that every Dec 18th, in the spot where the thermometer sits, it will be 70 degrees? That's what my data suggests.

But don't rely on local weather data to make inference about climate as a whole, when weather is not indicative of climate.

If an AGW "expert" says you'll experience torrential downpours, the desert will become deciduous by x year, the summers will reach an average of 105 and I see NONE of that, I'm still supposed to believe the consensus? Why would the consensus make those incorrect predictions on my weather if climate plays no part of it? Why would they be incorrect at all, since the consensus is fact, and therefore we should take from this program or that, tax the piss out of everyone because they're "polluting" with their brand new car?

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 12:54 AM

Using snowfall level/biggest desert to support AGW is bunk, because the data hasn't been collected long enough.

I don't believe I was. I was using it to support Celina's saying that beyond a certain point, colder vs. warmer is not directly correlated to snowfall.

Okay, it's 70 degrees outside, per the thermometer. Am I to assume by my "data" that every Dec 18th, in the spot where the thermometer sits, it will be 70 degrees? That's what my data suggests.

No, you are to assume where your thermometer sits outside, at the moment of reading, it was approximately 70 degrees, assuming your thermometer works.

I'm not sure what you're reading when you look at my posts, but whatever it is, it's not what the words I've typed imply.

If an AGW "expert" says you'll experience torrential downpours, the desert will become deciduous by x year, the summers will reach an average of 105 and I see NONE of that, I'm still supposed to believe the consensus? Why would the consensus make those incorrect predictions on my weather if climate plays no part of it? Why would they be incorrect at all, since the consensus is fact, and therefore we should take from this program or that, tax the piss out of everyone because they're "polluting" with their brand new car?

Once again, there is only so much predictive power in data when it comes to point estimations. What you are talking about--local weather--are essentially point estimations.

Criticize the predictive power of climate models on local weather all you want.

That doesn't change the point that local temperatures are not indicative of the temperature of the earth's climate as a whole.

Dale Emery

12-19-2008, 01:04 AM

In science, "theory" refers to a model that is strongly supported by evidence and generally accepted as fact by the scientific community. It's a lot more than a "best guess."

Given that so little of what I hear about AGW comes from climate scientists, I have a question. Do the climate scientists who claim AGW express those claims as theories, or hypotheses, or something else?

Dale

Captshady

12-19-2008, 01:08 AM

That doesn't change the point that local temperatures are not indicative of the temperature of the earth's climate as a whole.

So we're all to believe, based on blind faith, and completely ignoring when a Scientist/alarmist/devote believer of the holy consensus says the East Coast will suffer from the worst hurricane season ever, the most cat 5's in history, more tornadoes than mankind has ever seen, etc, and it doesn't happen? Why are they saying it then? How many years, because we're going on 20 now, will the consensus say that the earth is getting progressively hotter, daily before we'll see it in our weather? Never, since the two aren't related? COOL!

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 01:15 AM

Given that so little of what I hear about AGW comes from climate scientists, I have a question. Do the climate scientists who claim AGW express those claims as theories, or hypotheses, or something else?

Dale

I come from physics, which necessitates a rigorous mathematical framework, which, to my knowledge, climatology cannot always have. That said, though "theory" implies more than a hypothesis or a guess, there's no cut-and-dry rules about what exactly is a theory.

As far as I know, there is no single agreed-upon model, rather individual scientists with individual models of climate change all seeing similar trends. The individual models are hypotheses, but I'm not sure what I would call global warming in general, since it doesn't really describe new science; it just describes data using known theories.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 01:24 AM

New study increases concerns about climate model reliability

ROCHESTER, NY (Dec. 11, 2007) — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published on-line Wednesday in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology*, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

“The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change “forecasts” from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

“Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere,” said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. “The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

“When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.”

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

“The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts,” said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. “Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution.”

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study** that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

“The question was, what would the models ‘forecast’ for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?” said Christy. “To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

“As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

“Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend,” Christy said. “Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

“We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results.”

The models are potentially not accurate.

If computer models can't predict existing weather conditions, then why on Earth are we using the results of those models to justify an increase in legistlation/taxes/penalties/funding?

Dale Emery

12-19-2008, 01:32 AM

Consensus means nothing.

What would mean something?

Consensus matters to me because, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm not competent to understand the details of the science. So I'm left with assessing the credibility of the people who make various claims about AGW.

Credibility isn't easy for me to sort out, and I think the internet has made it harder for me, not easier. Once a topic becomes political, bogus claims seem to propagate as widely as valid ones (not that I can always tell which is which), and subsequent arguments (mostly by lay people) become polluted with sourceless claims or claims attributable to sources of unknown credibility.

When people say that "consensus doesn't matter because people have been wrong before," my credulity for the person making the claim plummets, especially when they cite bogus claims of wrongitude such as "remember 30 years ago when the consensus was global cooling?" There weren't no such consensus.

These claims tell me that the person understands the science no better than I do, and is arguing (as most of us are, I think) on the level of credibility. And I've heard those kinds of claims made so often about evolution (where I do understand the science at least marginally better than the people making the bogus claims) that it's hard for me to take them seriously.

Given the limits of my ability to understand the details of the science (I can probably grok the gist of the claims), all I have left is my reasonable-but-flawed way of assessing the credibility of the sources. And a major factor is the consensus of the people who study the phenomena in question.

It seems to me that consensus is part of the essence of the scientific process. It is embodied in the practices of peer review and of publishing data, methods, models, and hypotheses for others to test and assess.

For those of you who say that consensus means nothing: What would mean something? What would lead you to accept any scientific claim that you have not personally verified?

Dale

Dale Emery

12-19-2008, 01:37 AM

Consensus has been wrong, many times. Consensus alone is NOT rule, NOT law, and NOT proven scientific concept.

There are no proven scientific concepts. Science does not prove.

What scientific claims do you believe? How did you come to believe them?

Dale

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 01:40 AM

The models are potentially not accurate.

If computer models can't predict existing weather conditions, then why on Earth are we using the results of those models to justify an increase in legistlation/taxes/penalties/funding?

I've stated above individual models are hypotheses. There is no single agreed-upon model of global warming or climate change. Hell, there's no single model for climate at all.

Look at it this way:

Independent models are coins.

I flip it once and get heads.

Does that mean the coin isn't fair?

I flip it again. I get tails.

Clearly the coin can't be trusted.

I flip it a hundred times.

I don't get 50 heads. I get maybe 46. Does that mean the coin is weighted toward tails?

Let's take it a step further. 100 other people do the same experiment and make predictive models for the coin. What's the chance of the coin coming up heads? Lots of people have something like 40%, some have like 60%, and there are a few who have like 70% or even some crazy guy who had the coin as 26% chance of coming up heads.

But now we look at the experiments as a whole. Average them all together. We get around 50%.

What's your most reasonable conclusion?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 01:43 AM

What would mean something?

Consensus matters to me because, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm not competent to understand the details of the science. So I'm left with assessing the credibility of the people who make various claims about AGW.

Credibility isn't easy for me to sort out, and I think the internet has made it harder for me, not easier. Once a topic becomes political, bogus claims seem to propagate as widely as valid ones (not that I can always tell which is which), and subsequent arguments (mostly by lay people) become polluted with sourceless claims or claims attributable to sources of unknown credibility.

When people say that "consensus doesn't matter because people have been wrong before," my credulity for the person making the claim plummets, especially when they cite bogus claims of wrongitude such as "remember 30 years ago when the consensus was global cooling?" There weren't no such consensus.

These claims tell me that the person understands the science no better than I do, and is arguing (as most of us are, I think) on the level of credibility. And I've heard those kinds of claims made so often about evolution (where I do understand the science at least marginally better than the people making the bogus claims) that it's hard for me to take them seriously.

Given the limits of my ability to understand the details of the science (I can probably grok the gist of the claims), all I have left is my reasonable-but-flawed way of assessing the credibility of the sources. And a major factor is the consensus of the people who study the phenomena in question.

It seems to me that consensus is part of the essence of the scientific process. It is embodied in the practices of peer review and of publishing data, methods, models, and hypotheses for others to test and assess.

For those of you who say that consensus means nothing: What would mean something? What would lead you to accept any scientific claim that you have not personally verified?

Dale

I have to go by experience. I remember many a weekly reader growing up, that predicted a coming ice age. I remember it being taught in 3 different states I lived in (4th grade - 4 different classes, 3 different schools) 5th grade different state, 7th grade another state. I remember the In Search of episode that put the biggest scare of my 11 years into me that had many a "scientist" making the claim of an impending ice age.

I remember many a scientist on Good Morning America, The Today Show, et al in the late 80's telling me that desserts were going to be deciduous land, and the north east were going to become the new dessert. I remember reading the World News and Report article, interviewing the NASA scientist that made the claim ... it was the first time I'd heard the term "Greenhouse Effect".

I remember many an article, interviewing climatologists saying how my home would now be underwater, how by now I wouldn't be able to walk outside without wearing SPF kajillion.

There is a severe danger to the future scientific community when the term consensus is given such blind faith and IME it's been dead dead wrong over and over again.

I've personally seen too many people/organization be motivated politically or by funding. It's far to easy for an alarmist attitude to pop up, when private and government funding pay your salary. Why are climatologists free from greed?

Yet many want blind obedience.

I'll follow along if I can start my own carbon credit company, selling carbon credits to tree feeders vile polluters of our earth, to ease their guilt. I got 2 right here, in my pocket. You can have the first two for free.

Dale Emery

12-19-2008, 01:45 AM

And the consensus again is where? Where, in allllllllll the fear mongering, did the consensus say, "well the earth is getting warmer daily, starting in 1960-whatever, yet you won't notice a fricken difference."

The rates of global warming I've heard are on the order of 1 degree C per century. Even if this were a steady, definite increase of 1/100 degree per year, you would not notice the difference from one year to the next.

Dale

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 01:51 AM

It's far to easy for an alarmist attitude to pop up, when private and government funding pay your salary.

Wait a second.

So who do you propose pay salaries?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 02:10 AM

Wait a second.

So who do you propose pay salaries?

I meant by private donation.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 02:11 AM

I've stated above individual models are hypotheses. There is no single agreed-upon model of global warming or climate change. Hell, there's no single model for climate at all.

That's so not true. A NASA scientist recently came out about that, and said they all share the same algorithms and formulas, making them all the same. The only thing that's changed has been the graphical readouts.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 02:13 AM

The rates of global warming I've heard are on the order of 1 degree C per century. Even if this were a steady, definite increase of 1/100 degree per year, you would not notice the difference from one year to the next.

Dale

Okayyyy, so the ONLY proof is this magical consensus? Therefore, you should be taxed, penalized, and forced to buy carbon credits based on this, even though their meteorological prediction have been completely inaccurate?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 02:17 AM

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 02:38 AM

That's so not true. A NASA scientist recently came out about that, and said they all share the same algorithms and formulas, making them all the same. The only thing that's changed has been the graphical readouts.

No. It doesn't.

*sigh*

Dale Emery

12-19-2008, 02:53 AM

Okayyyy, so the ONLY proof is this magical consensus?

First, it's not magical. It's just consensus. Second, it's not proof. It's just consensus. Third, science does not prove.

ETA: Fourth, consensus not the "ONLY" factor that matters. But given that I'm not competent to understand the other factors, it's the one that I'm left giving extra weight to. If I were competent to understand the science in detail, I wouldn't care at all about consensus.

What I'm saying is that consensus lends credibility. Not proof, not blind obedience. Just credibility.

Therefore, you should be taxed, penalized, and forced to buy carbon credits based on this, even though their meteorological prediction have been completely inaccurate?

First, I have never recommended a tax, penalty, or forced purchase of carbon credit. Second, I don't do shoulds.

Third, I dismiss anybody's predictions of next year's weather based on hypotheses of global warming, just I dismiss anyone's claims that yesterday's weather is evidence either for or against global warming. All them peeps is trying to sell you something.

Global warming ain't about the weather (which is local in time and place). It's about long-term trends over the entire globe.

Dale

Monkey

12-19-2008, 05:04 AM

CaptShady, what I don't get is how you can mock information from NASA and scientific concensus, and cling to articles like the ones you've posted here.

Talk about people making up their minds and then seeking out sources that agree with them. :shrug:

Did you read my earlier post saying that five of the warmest years on record were after 1998 and fourteen of them were after 1990? (Or did you dismiss that info because it came from NASA?) No, we aren't having a steady succession with each year warmer than the last, but the trend is definitely upwards.

And to everyone who says that science is unreliable because it's all just "theory" and it is frequently updated...

Scientific Theory is judged largely on two things: 1) how well it describes known occurences and 2) how useful it is.

That little model of an atom you made in science class? We know for a fact that an atom doesn't work like that. But you know what? That model explains and predicts chemical reactions, so it's taught anyway.

We don't fully understand electricity, but we have flawed models that produce accurate results as to how it will act. Those models will undoubtedly be updated at some point, but they still serve as a useful, working guide...and electricians can use them to avoid being shocked, you can plug in your computer, have lights, ect, despite the flawed model.

I don't understand the crowd that dismisses evolution and global warming as "just theory" while sitting under incandescent light typing on a computer in the little bit of time they have before driving their internal-combustion engine vehicle to their job, where they will continue to use and rely on things based entirely on scientific theory.

Cyia

12-19-2008, 05:13 AM

*plants tongue firmly in cheek*

There is no global warming; the obesity rate is simply climbing and insulating everyone against the cold. (There are statistics to prove that, right?)

Monkey

12-19-2008, 05:17 AM

CaptShady was saying earlier that personal observations count for more than scientific concensus. By his logic, I am 95 pounds, my husband is very thin, my children are thin, both my husband's parents are thin, both my parents are thin, my brother is thin, my great grandmother is thin...the list goes on...so no, there is no rise in obesity.

Makes as much sense as saying, "It's cold here, so global temperatures aren't rising."

Cyia

12-19-2008, 05:20 AM

Monkey

12-19-2008, 05:47 AM

Okayyyy, so the ONLY proof is this magical consensus? Therefore, you should be taxed, penalized, and forced to buy carbon credits based on this, even though their meteorological prediction have been completely inaccurate?

You know what? Whether or not global warming exists is not as big an issue for me as you'd think.

What I believe very firmly is that a clean environment benefits everyone. Plants, animals, you name it. We should do whatever it takes to clean our little piece of this planet up and thus do what we can to help it, and all life on it, thrive. So, if it means taxing everyone, penalizing polluters, and forcing corporations to buy carbon credits, then YES, I am all for it. If global warming is what is spurring these things, FINE. If something else where spurring them, I'd be all for it...so long as the result was a cleaner environment.

Does Global Warming exist? Probably so. The vast majority of respected scientists who specifically study climate say "yes". If it turns out to be wrong? I'll heave a big sigh of relief and go on supporting cleaning up our environment, even if that has the dreaded effect of raising taxes or forcing companies to be accountable for their pollution.

But I keep jumping into these global warming or AGW threads. Why? Because I get really annoyed when I see people arguing against accepted scientific concensus for personal reasons. If the science is there, live with it. Don't tell me that evolution is wrong because your religious beliefs clash with it. Don't tell me that global warming doesn't exist because you're scared it'll raise taxes and/or be bad for business. Going out and finding others who agree with you, no matter how fringe they may be or how in the minority, doesn't help your case much. There is a reason you're seeking out the deniers, and it isn't rooted in science.

Bah.

Rant over. :D

benbradley

12-19-2008, 07:00 AM

...
I don't understand the crowd that dismisses evolution and global warming as "just theory" ...
So you put all "Global Warming deniers" in the same category as those questioning evolution amd promoting some evolution alternative to teach in public school science class?

The demographics are indeed too often polarized along political/religious lines, but not everyone buys into all of a canned set of beliefs, whether "conservative" or "liberal."

benbradley

12-19-2008, 07:05 AM

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 07:33 AM

“Models currently used for climate change studies have systematic errors concerning the southeastern Pacific Ocean, and because the models are not accurate for such an extensive area, the El Ninos they produce in the Pacific are questionable as well. We hope our research will get rid of, or at least greatly decrease, these uncertainties.” -- UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences C. Roberto Mechoso.

It occurs to me that people probably shouldn't rely or comment on quotations regarding scientific studies when they do not read the entire quotation or fully understand what it is saying.

So you put all "Global Warming deniers" in the same category as those questioning evolution amd promoting some evolution alternative to teach in public school science class?

No, but I put everyone who uses the phrase "just a theory" to dismiss science in the same category.

Monkey

12-19-2008, 07:40 AM

So you put all "Global Warming deniers" in the same category as those questioning evolution amd promoting some evolution alternative to teach in public school science class?

The demographics are indeed too often polarized along political/religious lines, but not everyone buys into all of a canned set of beliefs, whether "conservative" or "liberal."

It's not about conservative or liberal. It's about people who deny scientific concensus on the basis that it goes against their preset worldview. Evolution and global warming are the first two such issues that come to mind. A slightly different example would be people who insist 9-11 was an inside job. Another would be the crowd saying that it's harmful for children to be raised by gay parents (all the studies I've ever seen or heard of on the issue say that it isn't).

Global Warming and Evolution are two pretty clear-cut cases...the science is there, it's generally agreed upon, and yet there are those who ardently seek out minority opinions, or blogs that espouse views they prefer, or any layman who can give "proof" of their own preset views, and then insist on trying to convince the rest of us.

I'm not saying that it's the same people in each of these cases, only that it's the same behavior, and it annoys the crap out of me.

Williebee

12-19-2008, 08:11 AM

somewhere in the past I saw a video of a graph. It basically put forth this idea:

Global Warming is real:

1) Do nothing. Bad things happen.
2) Do something. Maybe not so bad things happen.

Global Warming is a bogus load of crap:

1) Do nothing. Nothing happens.
2) Do something. We save some energy, maybe conserve some clean air and water, maybe get more energy efficient lifestyles.

All the debate and bickering over which scientist's interpretation of which readings is correct completely misses the point.

Let's localize the discussion a bit:

Your kid (or if you can't handle that, the neighbor's kid) is playing in the street.

Do something about it, make a difference.
Do nothing, make a difference.

Which difference do you want to try and make?

Or you can sit on the porch and argue which direction of traffic is going faster.

LaceWing

12-19-2008, 10:57 AM

I'd be interested in allowing more room in this discussion for the climate change deniers to explore and present the ramifications getting it wrong, as they see it.

So, let's say that by consensus (or whatever other means, rightly or wrongly) we globally choose to curtail use of fossil fuels, reduce consumption generally, protect the environment, etc. I ask then, What would be wrong with that? How would the anticipated results be worse?

kuwisdelu

12-19-2008, 11:45 AM

Think of the poor Hummer drivers!!!!

Don

12-19-2008, 02:28 PM

So, let's say that by consensus (or whatever other means, rightly or wrongly) we globally choose to curtail use of fossil fuels, reduce consumption generally, protect the environment, etc. I ask then, What would be wrong with that? How would the anticipated results be worse?
Wonderful idea.

Using widely-disputed claims of boogeymen under the bed to force such changes down the throat of the public as a way of advancing a political agenda?

Not such a clever idea.

I'm with the Capt here on one thing in particular. The pols have lied to us about so much, from printing press money to marijuana to history itself, that I want concrete proof that we face a dire risk before I hand them even more power to control our lives. I remember the 'Next Ice Age' threats from my youth as vividly as the Capt, as well as the 'Evil Soviet Empire' that was relying on our grain to feed their citizens even as they were painted as ready to take over the world at a moment's notice.

FedGov in particular is already responsible for protecting us from damage by others others (including pollution) and assuring our rights, yet FedGov itself is the world's largest polluter and allows acts such as California's Proposition 8 to move forward without challenge. It wasn't until we marched in the streets that they finally provided basic civil rights to blacks; it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sorry if I happen to be skeptical that they'll do a better job protecting us from Global Warming.

We need to stop believing in fairy tales like the Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and a benevolent FedGov that has the interests of the citizens at heart.

stephenf

12-19-2008, 03:31 PM

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it absorbs and emits infrared. Basic physics proves that such gases will trap heat radiating from Earth, and the planet would be a lot colder if this did not happen.Australia is the worlds second largest emitter ,per capita, of CO2,There may be a link between Australian attitudes to global warming,or may be not?

Diana Hignutt

12-19-2008, 03:37 PM

Wonderful idea.

Using widely-disputed claims of boogeymen under the bed to force such changes down the throat of the public as a way of advancing a political agenda?

Not such a clever idea.

I'm with the Capt here on one thing in particular. The pols have lied to us about so much, from printing press money to marijuana to history itself, that I want concrete proof that we face a dire risk before I hand them even more power to control our lives. I remember the 'Next Ice Age' threats from my youth as vividly as the Capt, as well as the 'Evil Soviet Empire' that was relying on our grain to feed their citizens even as they were painted as ready to take over the world at a moment's notice.

FedGov in particular is already responsible for protecting us from damage by others others (including pollution) and assuring our rights, yet FedGov itself is the world's largest polluter and allows acts such as California's Proposition 8 to move forward without challenge. It wasn't until we marched in the streets that they finally provided basic civil rights to blacks; it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sorry if I happen to be skeptical that they'll do a better job protecting us from Global Warming.

We need to stop believing in fairy tales like the Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and a benevolent FedGov that has the interests of the citizens at heart.

A very good point. I'll post an example. I have asthma (so I'm good with less pollution, BTW). Recently, the Fed restricted use of proventol (aerosol-propelled) inhalers, which I have used successfully to treat my asthma for years. Now, only new aerosol-free inhalers may be used. No generic will be availabale for years. Now, many people will not be able to afford to breathe, and the drug companies get to make a gob more dough. People will die because of this, I promise you. Maybe, it save the earth down the road, maybe it won't.

Don

12-19-2008, 03:52 PM

A very good point. I'll post an example. I have asthma (so I'm good with less pollution, BTW). Recently, the Fed restricted use of proventol (aerosol-propelled) inhalers, which I have used successfully to treat my asthma for years. Now, only new aerosol-free inhalers may be used. No generic will be available for years. Now, many people will not be able to afford to breathe, and the drug companies get to make a gob more dough. People will die because of this, I promise you. Maybe, it save the earth down the road, maybe it won't.
Bingo. I have philosophical issues with government, but they're really not necessary. If government actually worked, perhaps they would be.

Given the consistent performance, particularly of FedGov, over my lifetime, I'm constantly amazed that anyone would think assigning them more tasks would be anything but a horrid idea.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 05:31 PM

Wonderful idea.

Using widely-disputed claims of boogeymen under the bed to force such changes down the throat of the public as a way of advancing a political agenda?

Not such a clever idea.

I'm with the Capt here on one thing in particular. The pols have lied to us about so much, from printing press money to marijuana to history itself, that I want concrete proof that we face a dire risk before I hand them even more power to control our lives. I remember the 'Next Ice Age' threats from my youth as vividly as the Capt, as well as the 'Evil Soviet Empire' that was relying on our grain to feed their citizens even as they were painted as ready to take over the world at a moment's notice.

I don't understand an approach to reality that puts whatever some particular government is doing at the same fundamental level as the physics of molecules.

There are, I think, fairly basic things about reality that have to be faced. One of them is that putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing some changes in climate and could cause even more. There's no reason at all to see what happens with CO2 has having anything at all to do with any government. Moreover, if you look at aspects of reality in their own terms, it is much easier to make sense of them.

It seems like a very round-about way of reasoning to have a problem with government and derive your attitudes to molecules from that problem rather than from the characteristics of the molecules themselves.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 05:39 PM

No, it goes beyond that (http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/12/listen-up-religious-leftists.html).

No, it's a question of where their funding comes from, and a matter of their claims not coming to fruition. It's a matter of what they're doing to the scientific community as a whole, the next time there's a new scientific crisis, and the scientific community needs the ears of the world.

I think the scientific community provided more than adequate warning of what increasing CO2 was doing in the atmosphere. Apparently what has gone wrong is that the attempt to mobilize people to deal with the problem has caused some very odd and irrelevent responses based on things that have nothing at all to do with what the scientic community has done. I think the response of blaming scientists and attacking science is something that always strikes a chord in some people. In this case I think it is totally irrelevent.

Don

12-19-2008, 05:40 PM

Higgins, the point I'm making is that the science is still being disputed, but it's being used by certain politicians as a bandwagon to advance their own agendas.

Given the political history of crying wolf at every possible moment, I tend to discount the AGW story, based on a past history of being lied to about everything from pot to the Next Ice Age to the Evil Soviet Empire. Frankly, I'd be much more likely to believe it if the pols were poo-pooing the whole idea and saying the scientists were wrong. :D

Even if they prove the GW case, AND that it's cause my man's actions, I'd still be loathe to assume that the political machine is likely to help, rather than hinder, resolving that problem.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 05:41 PM

A very good point. I'll post an example. I have asthma (so I'm good with less pollution, BTW). Recently, the Fed restricted use of proventol (aerosol-propelled) inhalers, which I have used successfully to treat my asthma for years. Now, only new aerosol-free inhalers may be used. No generic will be availabale for years. Now, many people will not be able to afford to breathe, and the drug companies get to make a gob more dough. People will die because of this, I promise you. Maybe, it save the earth down the road, maybe it won't.

And probably it has nothing to do with AGW and a lot more to do with how you make up your mind about molecules.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 05:43 PM

Captshady

12-19-2008, 05:49 PM

That little model of an atom you made in science class? We know for a fact that an atom doesn't work like that. But you know what? That model explains and predicts chemical reactions, so it's taught anyway.

And it was taught for decades as the smallest particle. You couldn't get any smaller than an atom, and lo and behold, the consensus was fricken wrong wrong wrong! Good thing the government didn't find a way to tax the result of this consensus.

2) Do something. We save some energy, maybe conserve some clean air and water, maybe get more energy efficient lifestyles.

And we pass on to future generations yet another tax/fee/penalty on bogus crap.

A very good point. I'll post an example. I have asthma (so I'm good with less pollution, BTW). Recently, the Fed restricted use of proventol (aerosol-propelled) inhalers, which I have used successfully to treat my asthma for years. Now, only new aerosol-free inhalers may be used. No generic will be availabale for years. Now, many people will not be able to afford to breathe, and the drug companies get to make a gob more dough. People will die because of this, I promise you. Maybe, it save the earth down the road, maybe it won't.

EXACTLY!!! What other of the earth's problems could be solved with the funding that goes towards a possible myth?

Don

12-19-2008, 05:50 PM

Well I agree there is reason to be skeptical of government propaganda and I think the comparison with the Evil Empire thing is apt and instructive. However, I think the science is fundamentally clear and there is no reason to attack researchers for doing their research.
I'm all for scientists doing research. I'm not convinced we'll ever get to the real truth until scientists start paying more attention to the facts than the opinions their respective employers want them to express. :D

When the facts are irrefutable enough that one side or the other has to say 'we were wrong' then I'll start believing the science instead of the spin. I think AGW is far from that point today.

In the meantime, treading more lightly on mother earth is never a bad thing.

Williebee

12-19-2008, 06:01 PM

Using widely-disputed claims of boogeymen under the bed to force such changes down the throat of the public as a way of advancing a political agenda?

The pols have lied to us about so much, from printing press money to marijuana to history itself, that I want concrete proof that we face a dire risk before I hand them even more power to control our lives.

And people want to KNOW who killed Kennedy. And if the person who did it stood up in the middle of Dealey Plaza and admitted it, and had pictures to prove it, ten people: including scientists, teamsters, government officials and the Dallas Club Owners Association would immediately decry the confession as bogus crap.

We don't live in the world of "concrete" anymore. Information flows as easily as water, and facts get diluted and washed into tanks until we're up to noses in "a little bit" of a lot of information.

Sure, I'd love for the Govt. not to be involved in this, and most other things. Right now we have people crying boogieman to push political agendas, and people crying that the folks crying boogieman ARE the boogieman, in order to push a DIFFERENT political agenda.

And, at the same time, the shareholders want to get paid. The CEO's want to get paid. And Joe Public likes his convenience. So, who's going to step up and drive the change?

Higgins

12-19-2008, 06:14 PM

And it was taught for decades as the smallest particle. You couldn't get any smaller than an atom, and lo and behold, the consensus was fricken wrong wrong wrong! Good thing the government didn't find a way to tax the result of this consensus.

Atoms are effectively the basic unit of some interactions, for example, the chemistry of molecules or the dynamics of noble gases. Do you really want to get into the details of how atoms and molecules work and how models of atoms and such things as molecular absorption and emission have improved over the last two centuries? I think this whole thing about science being WRONG WRONG WRONG is at best a rhetorical red herring and in any case has nothing at all to do with your problems with taxes.
Moreover if science is WRONG WRONG WRONG your problem with your taxes is even more trivial than it seems at first glance.
I'd be a lot more worried about living in a universe where science is WRONG WRONG WRONG than I would about AGW or taxes.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 06:17 PM

I'm all for scientists doing research. I'm not convinced we'll ever get to the real truth until scientists start paying more attention to the facts than the opinions their respective employers want them to express. :D

What are the facts you are referring to? The facts that researchers are not attending to?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 06:19 PM

Atoms are effectively the basic unit of some interactions, for example, the chemistry of molecules or the dynamics of noble gases. Do you really want to get into the details of how atoms and molecules work and how models of atoms and such things as molecular absorption and emission have improved over the last two centuries? I think this whole thing about science being WRONG WRONG WRONG is at best a rhetorical red herring and in any case has nothing at all to do with your problems with taxes.
Moreover if science is WRONG WRONG WRONG your problem with your taxes is even more trivial than it seems at first glance.
I'd be a lot more worried about living in a universe where science is WRONG WRONG WRONG than I would about AGW or taxes.

You have an obvious blind devotion, which is just as bad as blind religious devotion. You, like them, want to legislate your beliefs. Neither should happen.

Hell, you couldn't even admit that for decades, the consensus on atoms being the smallest particle of matter, was in fact a consensus, and and incorrect one at that.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 06:25 PM

You have an obvious blind devotion, which is just as bad as blind religious devotion. You, like them, want to legislate your beliefs. Neither should happen.

Hell, you couldn't even admit that for decades, the consensus on atoms being the smallest particle of matter, was in fact a consensus, and and incorrect one at that.

Well I'm not a late nineteenth century physicist so I have no confessions to make about my problem with atoms. On the other hand, models that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere are based on current understanding of molecules not nineteenth century understanding of molecules. But I don't think your problem with AGW has anything at all to do with the physics of molecules and your idea that ideas about atoms were WRONG WRONG WRONG is not actually relevent to current views of molecular physics.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 06:36 PM

Well I'm not a late nineteenth century physicist so I have no confessions to make about my problem with atoms. On the other hand, models that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere are based on current understanding of molecules not nineteenth century understanding of molecules. But I don't think your problem with AGW has anything at all to do with the physics of molecules and your idea that ideas about atoms were WRONG WRONG WRONG is not actually relevent to current views of molecular physics.

Yeah, scientist were wrong in the past, but the scientific community has now fixed all errors, and we're so fricken smart now, we'll never be wrong, so pay us! Donate until it hurts, or your children will pay the price!

Science knew the components of an atom, but up until about 20 years ago, maintained the consensus that you could go no smaller. Don't hurl your 19th century excuse. Blind faith.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 07:10 PM

Yeah, scientist were wrong in the past, but the scientific community has now fixed all errors, and we're so fricken smart now, we'll never be wrong, so pay us! Donate until it hurts, or your children will pay the price!

Science knew the components of an atom, but up until about 20 years ago, maintained the consensus that you could go no smaller. Don't hurl your 19th century excuse. Blind faith.

I'm not hurling excuses, it's just that I think molecular physics (wherein atoms are still more or less unified units) is very well grounded. I also think that your views on how recently atomic models have changed ((20 years ago would be 1988 and weak force theory has been around since 1934:

http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/news/picture-of-the-week/picture-archive/from-fermi-to-w-pairs--65-years-of-the-weak-force.html ): you are off by about 50 years on sub-electronic particles) is so far off that your judgement about whether current molecular models are good or bad or WRONG WRONG WRONG is likely to be pretty far off as well.

I also wonder whether it is really fair to say that having some good workable models is equivalent to thinking one is being so frikin smart that you have to pay us. I think you ought to separate your anxiety about taxes from your anxiety about molecules.

Diana Hignutt

12-19-2008, 07:31 PM

And probably it has nothing to do with AGW and a lot more to do with how you make up your mind about molecules.

What?!?? That doesn't even make any sense...

I'm done arguing with you, your mind is closed to possibilities. And before you say that mine is too, I'm all for skepticism, you evidently aren't.

Monkey

12-19-2008, 08:03 PM

CaptShady, that was an absolutely astounding dodge of my point.

My point was that the model of the atom currently taught in schools is "WRONG WRONG WRONG" on one level, and that it has been and will be tweaked, updated, perhaps even someday changed rather drastically...but that does not change its current effectiveness or its ability to predict chemical reactions.

We purposely teach a flawed model.

Same with electricity.

But we don't do it just so we can have all our children be our very own Wimp Lo (From Kung-Pow: "We taught him wrong, as a joke"). We do it because the incorrect models work: they give us an explanation for what's going on and enough knowledge to deal with the real world effectively.

That's how science works.

Also, try to remember that there are no absolutes in science. No matter what, one side will NEVER be forced to admit that they were wrong.

As to the money/political angle...Some people may benefit from saying global warming/AGW is real...but to me, if you simply follow the money, it looks like it heads directly to the global warming deniers. ExxonMobile had a bounty of thousands of dollars for any "reputable" climatologist who would claim global warming was a hoax. Why would they do that? $$$

But that's macro. Micro, we have people like you, who try to argue that global warming doesn't exist based--not on science--but on your fear that it will raise your taxes or hurt business if it does. Why can't you just say, "Sure, it probably exists, but I want the government to stay the hell out of it"?

Or is the problem that, if it does exist, you recognize that it's serious enough that government intervention may be necessary...so instead, you deny it and hide your head in the sand? I really don't understand the "it could cost money or give FedGov more power, so it must not exist" logic.

Monkey

12-19-2008, 08:21 PM

Let's put this in different terms for a second.

Global Warming deniers make up less than 10% of scientists. Let's say, for sake of argument, that a full 15% denied it. Say another 10% were unsure, but 75% percent of scientists agreed that global warming was real.

Now, let's pretend that we're no longer talking global warming, but an equally threatening terrorist attack. Computer simulations of the threat show large portions of the US displaced, food sources threatened, part of our actual land mass lost. The American people could suffer for generations.

75% of the intelligence community are in agreement that this threat is very real. They believe it can be stopped, though, and without the sort of intrusion to personal liberties incurred by the Patriot Act. All it would take is a small tax hike and for some businesses to find energy sources unreliant on countries like Saudi Arabia.

Would you say that FedGov should act?

Would you be angry if they didn't act and the threat turned out to be real?

I ask because every since 9-11 there's been an outcry about how we had intelligence that could have stopped it but "ignored" it. Thing is, the intelligence we had was vague and shaky, was buried in other information, and didn't come from too many sources...and yet, people are angry that FedGov didn't stop it.

For Global Warming, the science is there. The solutions are available.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 08:34 PM

Monkey

12-19-2008, 08:44 PM

Oh, yeah, because, yanno, after teh 70's our environment got real clean, didn't it?
;)

When you're talking intel or science, you aren't dealing in absolutes. You have this scale with "not bloomin' likely" on one side and "all signs point to yes" on the other. There is rarely, if ever, complete agreement on exactly where any particular issue belongs on that scale. Is it grey-but-almost-white or is it grey-but-it-might-as-well-be-black?

And again, you use the government to justify your view of science. Why not just say, "It's probably real, but I think the government should stay out of it?" Why deny that it even exists, based on how you think the government will react if it does?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 08:49 PM

Oh, yeah, because, yanno, after teh 70's our environment got real clean, didn't it?

It was an anti-litter campaign, and it worked well, IME.

And again, you use the government to justify your view of science. Why not just say, "It's probably real, but I think the government should stay out of it?" Why deny that it even exists, based on how you think the government will react if it does?

You act like government and blind faith can do no harm. I remember when the consensus among dieticians, doctors, the american heart & lung association, et al were saying that a diet rich in carbs and low in fat was the way to perfect health. How many people tried to eat healthy and wound up diabetic? Place blame where you may, but we now have an epidemic of diabetes in this country.

Monkey

12-19-2008, 08:59 PM

Blind faith? Government?

I've said global warming "probably" exists and based that on the fact that the vast majority of scientists who study Climatology say that it does.

I've said that if it doesn't exist, I'll heave a huge sigh of relief...meaning, I'll be damned glad.

But I've also said that I do believe ardently in cleaning up the environment.

So
a) Global Warming is very likely
b) the penalty for assuming it's a hoax and being wrong is severe
c) the "penalty" for acting as if it is not a hoax, right or wrong, will lead to a cleaner environment
d) I believe a cleaner environment is a good thing
=
my opinion on global warming

It's not about believing 100% in global warming; it's about a reasonable surety based on available data.

It's not about thinking the government can solve all our problems; it's about the understanding that the biggest polluters will change their ways only if forced to through legislation.

I suppose I'll ask a third and final time: Why not just say, "Sure, it probably exists, but the government should stay out of it"?

Captshady

12-19-2008, 08:59 PM

Scientists are human, and humans see patterns, even when there are none. That means that we can discount personal biases and still find reasons for incorrect conclusions. Add in the biases, and the conclusions seem more correct even when the evidence is inconclusive.

On the other hand, the scientific process is self-correcting and promotes objectivity about as well as any human activity can.

Monkey

12-19-2008, 09:11 PM

As a slight aside to our current conversation:

I saw two misconceptions ealier. The first is that the "fourth grade science experiment" of melting ice cubes in a glass is applicable to the rising sea levels that could happen as a result of global warming.

The flaw is this: there are many miles of ice currently ABOVE the water, sitting on land supported by ice or directly on ice sheets. To make your experiment more accurate, you'd have to fill the glass with ice, then pile ice high above the glass and find a way to keep it stacked there as it all melted. The slight expansion of warmer water, combined with the addition of the water from the ice cubes melted ABOVE the glass would run it over and the desk would be soaked.

The second is that you argued with MsCelina about warmer temps causing more snow.

Here's the first link I got on google:

http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm

A warmer world will have a higher sea level because as the land and lower atmosphere of the world warm, heat is transferred into the oceans. When materials are heated they expand (thermal expansion). So the heat that is transferred causes sea water to expand, which then results in a rise in sea level.

In addition, water from land-based ice such as glaciers and ice sheets may enter the ocean, thus adding to the rise. A point to remember is that no extra water is added to the oceans when ice floating in the ocean melts. As floating ice melts, it only replaces the volume of water that it originally displaced.

Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, 2.5 kilometres thick. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt – that's around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice – the seas would rise by over 60 metres! However, in the Antarctic it is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would remain below the melting point of ice. In fact, warmer temperatures could lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica.

(bolding mine)

ETA: I don't want this to turn into a back and forth between just you and me. We can take it to PM's if you really want to, but I'm stepping out of this thread now. Not angry or anything, I just want to keep this out of Hardcore or TIO or whatever and leave room in the discussion for others...and, well, as I said earlier, these threads never seem to convince anyone of anything, so we're both *ahem* into the wind. :D

Tirjasdyn

12-19-2008, 09:45 PM

The gov may have been able to stop 9-11. But they didn't use the resources they had. Since then they've done nothing to stop terrorism, but they have pissed people off, and made traveling a bitch...but have they stopped attacks...no.

The science behind global warming isn't an absolute. We don't even know if we are causing it. Sure, people believe we're causing it...just like there are folks who believe the TSA has our best interests at heart.

That doesn't make it true.

Let's put this in different terms for a second.

Global Warming deniers make up less than 10% of scientists. Let's say, for sake of argument, that a full 15% denied it. Say another 10% were unsure, but 75% percent of scientists agreed that global warming was real.

Now, let's pretend that we're no longer talking global warming, but an equally threatening terrorist attack. Computer simulations of the threat show large portions of the US displaced, food sources threatened, part of our actual land mass lost. The American people could suffer for generations.

75% of the intelligence community are in agreement that this threat is very real. They believe it can be stopped, though, and without the sort of intrusion to personal liberties incurred by the Patriot Act. All it would take is a small tax hike and for some businesses to find energy sources unreliant on countries like Saudi Arabia.

Would you say that FedGov should act?

Would you be angry if they didn't act and the threat turned out to be real?

I ask because every since 9-11 there's been an outcry about how we had intelligence that could have stopped it but "ignored" it. Thing is, the intelligence we had was vague and shaky, was buried in other information, and didn't come from too many sources...and yet, people are angry that FedGov didn't stop it.

For Global Warming, the science is there. The solutions are available.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 09:53 PM

The science behind global warming isn't an absolute. We don't even know if we are causing it.

I think the molecular models/radiative are about as well-grounded as any scientific analyses can be. I don't think anyone who knows what a molecule is and what a photon is has any quarrel with the basic greenhouse mechanism. I don't think anyone disputes that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that this is increasing the greenhouse effect. I don't think anyone disputes that human burning of fossil fuels has been contributing increasingly to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

So that's all pretty absolute. How much more absolute could it possibly be? That's about as utterly absolute as any assemblage of cause and effect is likely ever to be.
So its absolute.

dmytryp

12-19-2008, 10:03 PM

Let me correct this for you a little
somewhere in the past I saw a video of a graph. It basically put forth this idea:

Global Warming is real:

1) Do nothing. Bad things happen. Since the world already moves towards more efficient vehicles, cleaner technologies etc. With no further need of intrusion.
2) Do something. Maybe not so bad Unknown things happen. Since nobody can predict what impact such a massive change would do. For all we know, going solar en masse might cause warming since you change signifficantly the Earth's reflectivity and absorb much greater amounts of solar energy that will eventually be released as heat.

Global Warming is a bogus load of crap:

1) Do nothing. Nothing happens. As I said, world is already changing towards cleaner, more efficient and away from oil and coal.
2) Do something. We save some energy, maybe conserve some clean air and water, maybe get more energy efficient lifestyles. We invest great amounts of money that could have been used in other fields (like fighting hunger today) without signifficant improvement in GW area. Create unknown problems I talked about earlier and in fifty years we talk about fighting consequences of our actions today.

All the debate and bickering over which scientist's interpretation of which readings is correct completely misses the point.

Let's localize the discussion a bit:

Your kid (or if you can't handle that, the neighbor's kid) is playing in the street.

Do something about it, make a difference.
Do nothing, make a difference.

Which difference do you want to try and make?

Or you can sit on the porch and argue which direction of traffic is going faster.
I'll give you another analogy based on yours.
You see a car going towards your child. You think it is going to run him over. You rush to push him out of the way, only to see that the car was breaking and wouldn't hit him, but you pushed your kid in front of a truck.

I'd be interested in allowing more room in this discussion for the climate change deniers to explore and present the ramifications getting it wrong, as they see it.

So, let's say that by consensus (or whatever other means, rightly or wrongly) we globally choose to curtail use of fossil fuels, reduce consumption generally, protect the environment, etc. I ask then, What would be wrong with that? How would the anticipated results be worse?
First, the supposition that people who disagree with consensus on GW are against protecting environment is bogus.
Second, there is nothing wrong with reducing consumption, moving towards more efficient vehicles etc. The problem arises when you start discarding technologies that might not do a lot in terms of CO2 emissions, but are far cleaner and more efficient than technologies of today.The problem also arises when you push alternative technologies with great economical and unknown enviromental impacts.

In short, decisions made in a huryy under threat and based on incorrect assumptions tent to come back and bite mankind in the ass.

There has beeing a lot of things said in this thread that are pure fiction mixed with half truths and bs.
Let's start one by one.
Serious GW sceptics can be divided in two groups.
One -- people who disagree with the scientific conclusions of IPCC and AGW supporters. There are more than a few of them, and I posted a link to a conference that includes great many rather prominent scientists. The claim that they are "not climatologists" is pure bunk. First, the GW science today entails everything from biology (through tree ring dating) to astrophysics (cosmic rays theory). Not being specialists in the field doesn't stop people attacking Nir Shaviv's work, for example. Furthemore, the three leading scientific sceptics of today -- Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen) (atmospheric physicist), Henrik Svensmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensmark) (a physicist that studies the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation) and Nir Shaviv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv) (an astrophysict with his theory about the cosmic ray-climate change link). They are all serious scientists that know much more about the subject that any of us on this thread. They publish in same peer reviewed journals and to claim that the sceptic side is not based on science is bunk.
Two -- people who believ the consensus, but think that the proposed measure will give little result and contrary make a very bad impact on the economy and other fields where this money can be used. I posted a pretty good summary of this opposition in this thread, but I'll post it again
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html

People equated climate models and AGW with evolution. This is pure bunk. The AGW is full of holes. It has active scientific opposition that wasn't contradicted. If I, in my field of Materials Science, were to present a paper with material strength having a margin of error of 50%, my paper would be laughed at, thrown out and it would be pointed out to me that my experiment might have serious flaws. Yet, IPCC presents predictions of 1.5-4.5 degrees of change (which would be equivalent ot my example) over the next century (and several independant studies show that it very well might be even less than 1.5 degrees), and this is louded as solid science equivalent to evolution theory?

People make assertions that the sceptics only have the "the data doesn't look convincing" arguement and they don't propose alternatives and specific scientific criticism. This is pure bunk. Anybody who is interested in reading one of the leading sceptics, here is the link to Shaviv's site. It has a lot of interesting stuff, from recreation of past temperatures, to scientific papers, analysis of Earth's climate sensitivity and problems with the current consensus theory and models.
http://www.sciencebits.com/

He actually has an alternative theory. Well based on past recreation (empirical support), theoretical analysis of snesitivity (when his parameters are included you get a better result than without them), and finally he has Svensmark's experiments and computer simulations. The theory is well based, and he was able to answer all of his critics. The Danish science academy certainly thinks the theory has enough merit to launch a multi year experiment to conclusively validate the link. Once CLOUD gets results, the link would be indisputable and IPCC wouldn't be able to ignore this anymore and would have to incorporate it into the models.

There were more bs insinuations that the sceptics are anti-environment. The only thing missing were the usual claims that all the sceptics are bought by oil industry and have a hidden agenda.

Have fun.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 10:14 PM

People equated climate models and AGW with evolution. This is pure bunk. The AGW is full of holes.

I find accusations of "bunk" are a good indicator that the accuser has not thought through his own motives.

You are a materials scientist. You are not comfortable with the kind of models that give a range of predictions.

Other than some variation in the range of predictions, exactly what are the "holes" in AGW? And I don't think saying "Well solar X-rays can cause clouds" counts as a hole in AGW.

dmytryp

12-19-2008, 10:34 PM

I think the molecular models/radiative are about as well-grounded as any scientific analyses can be. I don't think anyone who knows what a molecule is and what a photon is has any quarrel with the basic greenhouse mechanism. I don't think anyone disputes that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that this is increasing the greenhouse effect. I don't think anyone disputes that human burning of fossil fuels has been contributing increasingly to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

So that's all pretty absolute. How much more absolute could it possibly be? That's about as utterly absolute as any assemblage of cause and effect is likely ever to be.
So its absolute.
Not so fast.
Human impact is not only CO2 emissions. IPCC acknowledges this, otherwise they wouldn't be able to explain the temperature drop in the 60s and the 70s.
The human activity results in a change of a radiative budget. Based on the IPCC numbers this change can even be negative (meaning humans might be cooling Earth). While this is unlikely, it only shows how much of a margin of error there is.

Next -- change of the radiative budget is not enough to know the temperature change. You need the climate sensitivity and another factor (I'll mention it later). The product of the three will give the change in temperature. The sensitivity is the biggest stone of contention today. If there were no feedbacks, the sensitivity would be lambda0. IPCC's models predict sensitivity to be 3-4 times lambda0. Which gives yields predictions of 1.5-4.5 degrees rise over the next century. Several independant (from different ages and different people) analysis give results of the actual sensitivity being close to the lambda0. And this would give temperature rise of 1-1.2 degrees over the next century. This means that even drastic measures taken today to curb CO2 emissions will have only marginal effect.
So, no. It is definitely not absolute.

The factor I mentioned is usually deemed to be 0.5. It allows to estimate the changes without waiting for the equilibrium state that would take centuries and even thousands of years.

blacbird

12-19-2008, 10:36 PM

dmytryp

12-19-2008, 10:39 PM

I find accusations of "bunk" are a good indicator that the accuser has not thought through his own motives.

You are a materials scientist. You are not comfortable with the kind of models that give a range of predictions.

Other than some variation in the range of predictions, exactly what are the "holes" in AGW? And I don't think saying "Well solar X-rays can cause clouds" counts as a hole in AGW.
I posted this many times before. Go to Shaviv's site. Specifically here (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar). The first part deals with the problems of IPCC's models and claims. Here (http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity), is explanation of problems with sensitivity assesments. So, yeah, I thought things through. Much more than people that accuse serious scientists of ignorance.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 10:43 PM

Not so fast.
Human impact is not only CO2 emissions. IPCC acknowledges this, otherwise they wouldn't be able to explain the temperature drop in the 60s and the 70s.
The human activity results in a change of a radiative budget. Based on the IPCC numbers this change can even be negative (meaning humans might be cooling Earth). While this is unlikely, it only shows how much of a margin of error there is.

Next -- change of the radiative budget is not enough to know the temperature change. You need the climate sensitivity and another factor (I'll mention it later). The product of the three will give the change in temperature. The sensitivity is the biggest stone of contention today. If there were no feedbacks, the sensitivity would be lambda0. IPCC's models predict sensitivity to be 3-4 times lambda0. Which gives yields predictions of 1.5-4.5 degrees rise over the next century. Several independant (from different ages and different people) analysis give results of the actual sensitivity being close to the lambda0. And this would give temperature rise of 1-1.2 degrees over the next century. This means that even drastic measures taken today to curb CO2 emissions will have only marginal effect.
So, no. It is definitely not absolute.

The factor I mentioned is usually deemed to be 0.5. It allows to estimate the changes without waiting for the equilibrium state that would take centuries and even thousands of years.

I think the "science" behind the mechanisms (eg. CO2 interacting with photons) is about as absolute as things get. You are entirely correct to point out that such things as how much impact the reduction of CO2 inputs may have is not clear. That is obviously a matter of modeling and far from absolute BUT there is every reason to expect the models to go on improving very quickly and no sign that the improved models are going to give completely different results than the current models.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 10:45 PM

I posted this many times before. Go to Shaviv's site. Specifically here (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar). The first part deals with the problems of IPCC's models and claims. Here (http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity), is explanation of problems with sensitivity assesments. So, yeah, I thought things through. Much more than people that accuse serious scientists of ignorance.

Okay! Consider me chastized! I will go look at Shaviv's site.

dmytryp

12-19-2008, 10:47 PM

I think the "science" behind the mechanisms (eg. CO2 interacting with photons) is about as absolute as things get. You are entirely correct to point out that such things as how much impact the reduction of CO2 inputs may have is not clear. That is obviously a matter of modeling and far from absolute BUT there is every reason to expect the models to go on improving very quickly and no sign that the improved models are going to give completely different results than the current models.
The bolded part is not true. As I already posted. Shaviv used the same models as IPCC. He only added his cosmic rays-clouds link. He got better results than IPCC. He got results of sensitivity being around lambda0. And finally, he got results that say his mechanism is responsible for about 2/3 of the warming so far. So, yeah, a 1 degree rise over a century compared to the consensus 3-4 degrees is a signifficant difference.

Joe270

12-19-2008, 11:14 PM

Also, try to remember that there are no absolutes in science.

This is so very wrong. There are many absolutes in science. It could be argued that physics is based on absolutes.

This is one example of the clap-trap GW supporters toss out which they expect all of us to swallow without argument.

The worst example of it is the constant tossing about that '99% of all scientists' agree with their view. This is simply not true on a couple different levels.

On the first level, not all scientists have a single clue about GW as a function of their expertise. For example, a crystallographer, a physiologist, a paleontologist, or a cartographer has absolutely no professional exposure to anything to do with GW. So what is their opinion worth? No more than any other person.

On the second, and most important level, while the majority of scientists recognize a rise in temps since the middle ages, that does not translate into their support of the GW position, and especially not the AGW position.

In explanation: Most scientists do agree upon reviewing data that global temperature has increased since 1850 due to two causes:

1) astronomical influences (stuff from outside our planet like sun output)
2) terrestrial influences (human-caused and naturally caused changes, like volcano eruptions, greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc.)

Even within this agreement, most scientists say that #1 is the primary cause. Just how many of these scientists consider the warming trend just part of a natural cycle is not known.

That doesn't back up the assertion from GW folks from stating that '99% of scientists' agree with them. But that subtle distinction sure doesn't stop them from shouting out that they have the full backing of the scientific community, which they do not.

Now let's discuss those 'climatological' scientists. I'm willing to leave this one up for investigation, because I don't have time to delve into the research right now.

From what I have been able to find on the net, 2001 was the first year that a college offered a 'climatological' degree, meaning that the first graduates came somewhere in 2003 or 2004.

http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/09feb.pdf

Sounds like a 'made to order' degree to me.

But, hey, crop circle experts exist, too. Really, just google 'crop circle expert' and you'll find lots of them.

Higgins

12-19-2008, 11:54 PM

On the first level, not all scientists have a single clue about GW as a function of their expertise. For example, a crystallographer, a physiologist, a paleontologist, or a cartographer has absolutely no professional exposure to anything to do with GW. So what is their opinion worth?

Paleontologists would have a very good idea of what is involved in GW. Indeed one of the problems with the Cosmic Rays as a cause of GW is that CO2 is actually constrained in the Phanerozoic record, so it could well have a role in Phanerozoic climate fluctuations.

Captshady

12-19-2008, 11:55 PM

All scientists are infallible!

Williebee

12-19-2008, 11:57 PM

Let me correct this for you a little

Wait, editing my description of an assumption filled idea, only to insert even more assumptions doesn't qualify as "correcting".

And the edits still don't address the central point.

Try it this way:

Global Warming is Real:

1) Do nothing - things happen, the world changes, but maybe not as quickly as if you had gotten off your ass and tried.
2) Do something, as intelligently as you can -- things happen. some good, some unknown, and maybe bad. Maybe. But you still did some good.

Global Warming is a load of crap --

1) Do nothing. The world economy continues to move toward cleaner, more efficient energy, and you, maybe, get left behind.
2) Do something. Do it as intelligently as you can, and you might just do some good.

Committing yourself to doing nothing simply because you MIGHT break something, ends up with you sitting on a floor somewhere, staring at a wall, breathing very carefully until something or someone takes your air away.

Do something or do nothing, things will change. Make whatever assumptions you want. Believe whichever laundry list of "experts" you wish. Either way, you're playing the odds.

Higgins

12-20-2008, 12:07 AM

All scientists are infallible!

Or at least very inventive. Apparently in order to match the supposed impact of supposed increased cosmic ray flux on the earth's climate, Shaviv (in an 2003 article he seems to have omitted from his website/blog) came up with some extra ice ages. He tints them less blue than the ice ages for which there is some actual evidence. But otherwise the earth's climate shifts don't match very well with the supposed positions of the spiral arms of the galaxy. Apparently after this article Shaviv switched from the galaxy as the cause of climate shifts on earth to the Sun... which is a little more proximal I suppose.

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 12:25 AM

Wait, editing my description of an assumption filled idea, only to insert even more assumptions doesn't qualify as "correcting".

And the edits still don't address the central point.

Try it this way:

Global Warming is Real:

1) Do nothing - things happen, the world changes, but maybe not as quickly as if you had gotten off your ass and tried.
2) Do something, as intelligently as you can -- things happen. some good, some unknown, and maybe bad. Maybe. But you still did some good.

Global Warming is a load of crap --

1) Do nothing. The world economy continues to move toward cleaner, more efficient energy, and you, maybe, get left behind.
2) Do something. Do it as intelligently as you can, and you might just do some good.

Committing yourself to doing nothing simply because you MIGHT break something, ends up with you sitting on a floor somewhere, staring at a wall, breathing very carefully until something or someone takes your air away.

Do something or do nothing, things will change. Make whatever assumptions you want. Believe whichever laundry list of "experts" you wish. Either way, you're playing the odds.

I never meant do nothing at all. I mean "do nothing rushly, based on incomplete data." Based on humankind's experience, it is a recipy for disaster.

P.S. My "correcting" was meant to be jokingly.

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 12:26 AM

Or at least very inventive. Apparently in order to match the supposed impact of supposed increased cosmic ray flux on the earth's climate, Shaviv (in an 2003 article he seems to have omitted from his website/blog) came up with some extra ice ages. He tints them less blue than the ice ages for which there is some actual evidence. But otherwise the earth's climate shifts don't match very well with the supposed positions of the spiral arms of the galaxy. Apparently after this article Shaviv switched from the galaxy as the cause of climate shifts on earth to the Sun... which is a little more proximal I suppose.
What? This is based on what?

EDIT: And did you mean this (http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages) article? Because the summary and the link to the actual article is most certainly there.

Higgins

12-20-2008, 12:40 AM

What? This is based on what?

EDIT: And did you mean this (http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages) article? Because the summary and the link to the actual article is most certainly there.

Thanks. I overlooked that. Very interesting stuff. I suppose explaining changes in earth's climate using galactic spiral arm periodicity is a bit odd, especially since (as the 2003 article points out) that periodicity is unknown. The spiral arm argument was used in the mass extinction craze of the 1980s and did not work well even then. I'm still looking at Shaviv's stuff and it is definitely worthwhile -- even if not particularly convincing....

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 12:51 AM

Thanks. I overlooked that. Very interesting stuff. I suppose explaining changes in earth's climate using galactic spiral arm periodicity is a bit odd, especially since (as the 2003 article points out) that periodicity is unknown. The spiral arm argument was used in the mass extinction craze of the 1980s and did not work well even then. I'm still looking at Shaviv's stuff and it is definitely worthwhile -- even if not particularly convincing....
He teamed with Jan Veitzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Veizer) (who is a pretty well known scientist). They reconstructed the temperatures of Earth. Than he reconstructed the Cosmic Ray Flux based on meteorites (I will save you the trouble, there was criticism (http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504155) of this reconstruction by an astrophysicist named Jahnke, and Shaviv answered it here (http://www.sciencebits.com/JahnkeResponse)).
The general links to criticism and the answers to it, can be found here (http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate).
And the short summary of experiments and how the cosmic ray-cloud cover link plays in the current warming can be found here (http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate). It also has the links to all the work done by others in this area.

kuwisdelu

12-20-2008, 01:16 AM

And it was taught for decades as the smallest particle. You couldn't get any smaller than an atom, and lo and behold, the consensus was fricken wrong wrong wrong! Good thing the government didn't find a way to tax the result of this consensus.

You've got to be kidding me.

:Headbang:

Yeah, maybe there was a consensus that it was the smallest particle that we knew about.

That doesn't mean scientists insisted that it had to be.

And that doesn't change that the fact that if you had a predictive model that works, it doesn't matter if it's exactly right or not. Because it works.

You could calculate where Mars will be every day next month using Ptolemy's model of a geocentric solar system with all its complicated epicycles. It's completely wrong, but it works. Because observations show that it works.

Yes, not every climate model makes the right predictions all the time, but we are still working on it. No one is saying our understanding of global warming or climate change is perfect. Just that the observable trends are undeniable.

Using your reasoning, there's no reason to fund any scientific research, ever, because it's all going to be proven wrong and improved upon later anyway! What's the point! Science is WRONG WRONG WRONG! Better throw out my computer--sure our theory of electromagnetism makes it work, but it could still be slightly off (in fact, it probably is), and that means it's WRONG WRONG WRONG.

No one should make any decisions based on gravity either...after all, sure, Einstein improved Newton's theory. Newton's theory worked pretty often, but it was still WRONG. Einstein's theory works, but there's growing evidence it could be improved and added to as well, and that means it's WRONG. Does that mean I can jump off a cliff, because I can now disregard our theory of gravity as WRONG?

Please, answer. I'd like to know.

Science knew the components of an atom, but up until about 20 years ago, maintained the consensus that you could go no smaller. Don't hurl your 19th century excuse. Blind faith.

20 years ago? Don't make me laugh.

Quick! Someone call Maxwell! We need to tell him his equations are WRONG.

This is so very wrong. There are many absolutes in science. It could be argued that physics is based on absolutes.

Based on it? Possibly. I suppose it could be argued that.

We don't know that we know them, though.

But even the absolutes we know are there--like the constants--there is evidence that they may not have always been at the exact value they are today. It's one of the great questions of physics if any of the fundamental constants ever held different values in the distant past.

I'd say physics is based on quasi-absolutes.

Now let's discuss those 'climatological' scientists. I'm willing to leave this one up for investigation, because I don't have time to delve into the research right now.

From what I have been able to find on the net, 2001 was the first year that a college offered a 'climatological' degree, meaning that the first graduates came somewhere in 2003 or 2004.

http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/09feb.pdf

Sounds like a 'made to order' degree to me.

Perhaps, but other Earth and Atmospheric scientists (geologists, biogeophysicists, geochemists, atmospheric physicists, etc., etc.) have been around for a long time and would be posed pretty well to understand global warming.

benbradley

12-20-2008, 05:17 AM

Aren't we getting off track talking of all this science and these atoms and molecules and stuff? Think of the polar bears!
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html

ETA: I wonder if I should add some snarky smilies or something.

Cyia

12-20-2008, 08:00 AM

Using your reasoning, there's no reason to fund any scientific research, ever, because it's all going to be proven wrong and improved upon later anyway!

Actually if there was no research done ever, then said research could never be proven wrong. :tongue

(Sorry. I have nothing useful to add... move along...)

Joe270

12-20-2008, 08:32 AM

Committing yourself to doing nothing simply because you MIGHT break something, ends up with you sitting on a floor somewhere, staring at a wall, breathing very carefully until something or someone takes your air away.

The problem is that doing 'something' will mean taking away freedoms which people and businesses have now that they won't if a GW agenda takes over.

Everything will cost more because transportation and manufacturing will cost more.

Vast sums will be squandered on 100 million dollar solar plants that are not feasible, and are even less feasible now that oil is plummeting in value. I've posted on this boondoggle before:

http://www.metaefficient.com/news/north-americas-largest-solar-electric-plant-in-switched-on.html

Over a hundred years to break-even is stupid. This will never break-even.

The stuff that works, like the trash to gas plants, fine. Solar isn't feasible yet.

The freedom we will lose will start with civil aviation. Environmentalists have targeted civil aviation for a long time now, and now have the avgas down to 100 octane, which is borderline for small aircraft. The assault has been so effective that the prices of used aircraft has plummeted, aircraft which sold for a half million just five years ago are now selling for just over a hundred grand. It started before the economy went south, so that's not all due to the economy. The problem is that people just don't think they'll be able to fly the expensive machines in a few years.

I've heard pilots saying they figure civil aviation will be gone in five years if the environmentalist gain any more power.

Once they kill civil aviation, the next target will be boating. Kiss those jetskis and bassboats goodbye. They'll label them as 'recreational use' which pollutes the atmosphere for no good reason.

Then four-wheelers and dirt bikes will go.

Somewhere before that, they'll ban all gasoline lawn mowers and gasoline lawn equipment.

That's just some of the future under a GW agenda.

benbradley

12-20-2008, 09:58 AM

Problem solved. (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20081219/scientist-proposes-039-colossal-refrigeration-system-039-stave-global-warming.htm) Let's have a party and burn a big bonfire.

blacbird

12-20-2008, 10:57 AM

The problem is that doing 'something' will mean taking away freedoms which people and businesses have now that they won't if a GW agenda takes over.

Not necessarily. This is pure scaremongering. Depends on what is done, doesn't it?

We've done a number of things historically in response to environmental issues that are now widely accepted as sensible actions. We don't let businesses pour chemical pollutants into our streams and rivers, or bury toxic wastes in landfills in an unregulated fashion (google "Love canal" to check on this one, if you need to). And there exists a separation from the freedom of individual "people" and individual "businesses" that lies at the core of a serious conundrum for the Republican Party's political views on these issues. Summarize, those two things are not identical.

caw

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 11:13 AM

You've got to be kidding me.

:Headbang:

Yeah, maybe there was a consensus that it was the smallest particle that we knew about.

That doesn't mean scientists insisted that it had to be.

And that doesn't change that the fact that if you had a predictive model that works, it doesn't matter if it's exactly right or not. Because it works.

You could calculate where Mars will be every day next month using Ptolemy's model of a geocentric solar system with all its complicated epicycles. It's completely wrong, but it works. Because observations show that it works.

Yes, not every climate model makes the right predictions all the time, but we are still working on it. No one is saying our understanding of global warming or climate change is perfect. Just that the observable trends are undeniable.

Using your reasoning, there's no reason to fund any scientific research, ever, because it's all going to be proven wrong and improved upon later anyway! What's the point! Science is WRONG WRONG WRONG! Better throw out my computer--sure our theory of electromagnetism makes it work, but it could still be slightly off (in fact, it probably is), and that means it's WRONG WRONG WRONG.

No one should make any decisions based on gravity either...after all, sure, Einstein improved Newton's theory. Newton's theory worked pretty often, but it was still WRONG. Einstein's theory works, but there's growing evidence it could be improved and added to as well, and that means it's WRONG. Does that mean I can jump off a cliff, because I can now disregard our theory of gravity as WRONG?

Please, answer. I'd like to know.

20 years ago? Don't make me laugh.

Quick! Someone call Maxwell! We need to tell him his equations are WRONG.

Based on it? Possibly. I suppose it could be argued that.

We don't know that we know them, though.

But even the absolutes we know are there--like the constants--there is evidence that they may not have always been at the exact value they are today. It's one of the great questions of physics if any of the fundamental constants ever held different values in the distant past.

I'd say physics is based on quasi-absolutes.

Perhaps, but other Earth and Atmospheric scientists (geologists, biogeophysicists, geochemists, atmospheric physicists, etc., etc.) have been around for a long time and would be posed pretty well to understand global warming.
Kuwi, the climate models are not even in the same ballpark as the rest of the things you mentioned. You mentioned using wrong models because they work. Well, climate models don't even do that (http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants). They make a lousy job with volcanic eruptions (look at the bottom part of the link). And they do manage to fit the temperatures, but only because the margin of error allowed is huge (the upper part).

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/volc/20thCentury.jpg Figure 1: Models can fit 20th century warming. This is seen is this graph taken from the IPCC-TAR where the gray region depicts different model results and the red line the actual surface temperature measurements (there is a similar IPCC AR4 graph, but it commences in 1900, thus covering up a clear embarrassment for high sensitivity models, as I describe below). The blue error bar is the estimate for how much warming one would guess using AR4 values for the net radiative forcing and the climate sensitivity. Clearly, almost any observed warming, from 0.2 to 1.2°C, would have been comfortably explainable as anthropogenic warming. Thus, the "fit" bares no real significance on the validity of the anthropogenic assumption. The green error bar is the estimate I find using the IPCC AR4 net radiative forcing but with my best estimate (http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity) for the climate sensitivity (ΔTx2 = 1 to 1.5°C), based on how earth actually behaved, as opposed to how it behaves in numerical simulations. The green error bar cannot explain the whole warming because the IPCC AR4 is missing a large natural radiative forcing, that associated with the solar → cosmic ray → link (http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate).

blacbird

12-20-2008, 11:24 AM

Dmytry, the trend of that graph since about the mid 1960s is not comforting. And your green "error" bar sits completely outside the red and gray tend lines. And the blue error bar, if positioned about 1965, would sit much lower on the scale than it does. Plus, everybody needs to understand what an "error bar" means. It does not mean that there's an equal chance for the data to sit at any point along the bar. It represents, in statistical fact, the extent of a bell curve, with the greatest likelihood in the center, and diminishing likelihood toward either end, presumably limited by one or more standard deviations from the median.

caw

Joe270

12-20-2008, 11:34 AM

Not necessarily. This is pure scaremongering. Depends on what is done, doesn't it?

Yes, it does depend on what's being done, and civil aviation has been targeted and greatly hurt by the environmentalist movement.

It's not paranoia when they're really out to get ya.

Of course, up there in Alaska, which needs civil aviation so much, I'd think you'd know a thing or two about the threats to it. It will make life a whole lot more difficult, or at least more expensive, for folks up in your neck of the woods.

Of course the environmentalist view is 'oh, just change to kerosene-based fuels', yeah, right. That means you need an aircraft about the size of a Beech King Air to actually carry any weight. Turboprop (kerosene based fueled engines) are really expensive. You might just as well buy a jet than a turboprop.

So this isn't some fear mongering on my part, it is a reality. Civil aviation is a freedom we have now which is under great threat from environmentalists. Once they win that one, then they'll have precedent to attack other 'recreational' uses of fossil fuels.

That's the fact, Jack.

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 03:48 PM

Dmytry, the trend of that graph since about the mid 1960s is not comforting. And your green "error" bar sits completely outside the red and gray tend lines.

Bolding mine.
This is exactly the point Shaviv was making here. That using empirical estimates of sensitivity without the cosmic ray -- clouds based on past behaviour, you'd get the green error bars that can't, in fact, describe the whole temperature change.

And the blue error bar, if positioned about 1965, would sit much lower on the scale than it does.
I am not clear what you mean here

Plus, everybody needs to understand what an "error bar" means. It does not mean that there's an equal chance for the data to sit at any point along the bar. It represents, in statistical fact, the extent of a bell curve, with the greatest likelihood in the center, and diminishing likelihood toward either end, presumably limited by one or more standard deviations from the median.

caw

Usually errors are one standart deviation. And in physical terms two parameters that have sizes overlapping (including error bars) are considered the same (1+-1 in physical terms is the same as 1.5+-1). As I said, if somebody presented a paper with 50% error bar in any other field, he'd be laughed at.

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 03:57 PM

Since we were talking earlier about the ice-core data based reconstructions of CO2 levels and temperatures. Here (http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth) is an explanation why this correlation can't be used as proof of antropogenic origins of the current warming.

The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature cannot be that of CO2. That driver, whatever it is, affects the climate equilibrium, and the temperature changes accordingly. Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well. The changed CO2 can further affect the temperature, but the CO2 / temperature correlation cannot be used to say almost anything about the strength of this link. Note that I write "almost anything", because it turns out that the CO2 temperature correlation can be used to say at least one thing about the temperature sensitivity to CO2 variations, as can be seen in the box below.

...snip

Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. The same correlations, however cannot be used to say anything about the temperature's sensitivity to variations in the CO2. I am sure there is some effect in that direction, but to empirically demonstrate it, one needs a correlation between the temperature and CO2 variations, which do not originate from temperature variations.

bolding mine

An aside -- someone who is interested in a scientific paper about how Shaviv gets his numbers of climate sensitivity can go here (http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf). Warning -- it is pretty technical.

blacbird

12-20-2008, 09:51 PM

As I said, if somebody presented a paper with 50% error bar in any other field, he'd be laughed at.

That's not a 50% error bar. It's about a 1 degree Celsius error bar. It only looks big because of the limited graphic scale at which the data are shown. If I want to display this graph on a scale, say, from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius, it becomes, by your method of interpretation, a 1% error bar. Come on, dmytry, you are involved in science and we all know that you know better than that.

And even with that "big" error bar, the graph clearly shows that most of the data from the mid-19th Century until about 1970 fall near the bottom of the bar, or below, entirely outside the margin of error. You can claim it is meaningless all you want, but that doesn't make it so, unless you're of the scientific view that endless repetitive assertion is a valid means of argument.

caw

dmytryp

12-20-2008, 10:30 PM

That's not a 50% error bar. It's about a 1 degree Celsius error bar. It only looks big because of the limited graphic scale at which the data are shown. If I want to display this graph on a scale, say, from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius, it becomes, by your method of interpretation, a 1% error bar. Come on, dmytry, you are involved in science and we all know that you know better than that.
No, you know better than that.
1. The prediction of temperature change is 3+-1.5 degrees over the next century. That's 50% error.
2. The change of average temperature since the 1850 is 0.8+-0.5 degrees. You are right, that's not 50%, that's more. The carrier wave of average temperature is irrelevant. That's like saying a 50% change in the AC voltage while the carrier DC voltage stays the same isn't really 50%. You are looking at the increase of temperature, not the absolute temperature.

And even with that "big" error bar, the graph clearly shows that most of the data from the mid-19th Century until about 1970 fall near the bottom of the bar, or below, entirely outside the margin of error. You can claim it is meaningless all you want, but that doesn't make it so, unless you're of the scientific view that endless repetitive assertion is a valid means of argument.

caw
For G-d's sake, what does this statement even mean? The graph simply shows that with the margin of error allowed you would be able to fit any increase from 0.2 to 1.2 degrees as "antropogenic". For any serious scientist, such a fit can't be the definitive proof that the underluying science is solid.