Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Donderundblitzen
Joined: 12/27/2008
Msg: 110
The Science of Global WarmingPage 5 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
As this is the only active global warming thread I could find, I'll post my first here. I'm a climatologist, and hope I can add something positive to the discussion. One writer here asked a very simple question that will be my beginning here.

The writer's query was in msg. 12, and he asked if there were peer-reviewed references to the fact that the recent rise in CO2 (during the industrial era) is due to human industrial activities. To respond (and staying, as the rules call for, "on topic"), that's not quite the point being made in regards to CO2 rise being due to human activities. We know that human activities (which would include deforestation) are the cause of current CO2 rise because of isotope analysis, and comparing the exchanges of carbon reserves in the atmosphere, land biosphere (soil and forests), and oceans.

The oceans and land biosphere would have to see a decrease in carbon they hold in order for the atmospheric CO2 levels to have been a natural increase. We're not seeing this, in fact, the opposite appears to be happening. A paper produced in 2002 used direct observation of partial CO2 pressure at the ocean's surface determined that carbon was increasing in the oceans (Takahashi, 2002); and another study observed spatial distribution of atmospheric CO2, showing how much carbon goes in or out of specific regions of ocean (Bousquet, 2000). These references are simply the accepted landmark papers showing that the CO2 rise is due to human activities.

Before going on, I would like to state my professional opinion on the topic. I'm of the opinion that at least SOME of the current climatic changes are due to human activities (how much is subject to debate); however, I'm not at all convinced that the impacts of those changes via the so-called "greenhouse effect" will be as detrimental as reported by environmentalists or media. As a scientist, I would prefer to leave the "what action to take to 'rectify' the situation" to those affected by the changes, effectively staying out of such arguments.

Journal References:

Takahashi et al. (2002), Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects. Deep Sea Research, vol. 49, 1601-1622.

Bousquet et al. (2000), Regional changes of CO2 fluxes over land and oceans since 1980. Science, vol. 290, 1342-1346.
 DeagleNINja2
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 111
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/4/2009 12:57:35 PM
Much like abortion, you can't bring up 'global warming' without all the nutjobs on the far-right and left making their pet theories known.

I don't deny that the Earth is warming. I'm just very skeptical that the 3% of the Earth's CO2 we contribute during a year is causing a runaway greenhouse effect. This planet would have destroyed itself long ago if it were that fragile IMO.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 112
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/4/2009 1:43:51 PM

Not the least of which is that a body entered our solar system in February of 2003 that was much larger than Jupiter. He shows it documented by the SOHO telescope. Fascinating video really worth watching in it's entirety.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Every telescope bigger than 4 inches could see that. I have a 12" myself, and I'm not even remotely serious about astronomy. Are you honestly trying to say that every damn amateur astronomer AND every single government on this planet are in a giant conspiracy to hide a Jupiter+-sized body that entered the Solar System in 2003?

Wow. Who knew an iron-clad conspiracy of this magnitude could even be conceived, much less executed so perfectly?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 113
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/4/2009 3:28:11 PM

Your kinda hostile arn't you ? desrtrhino fits quite nicely. Keep up the good work


This isn't about me (but nice try changing this to an ad hominem straw man), it's about your ludicrous, unsupported implicit claims of a conspiracy of unimaginable size to conceal a body larger than Jupiter entering our Solar System in 2003. That would be for 6 years now, next month.

How, exactly, would something like that work? I'm intensely curious. Obviously, you have a powerful intellect that is not bounded by the dominant paradigm, so enlighten me. Please.

Of course, there is another explanation.

It could be that you are just parroting what you've heard or read in the popular anti-science counter-culture, and are being a good little sheep, albeit from a slightly smaller herd.
 Donderundblitzen
Joined: 12/27/2008
Msg: 115
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/5/2009 4:03:07 AM
Novascotialass, I do have an answer for your question. Oceans absorb CO2 because of the ability to interact with water, forming carbonate and bicarbonate matter. This interaction is largely absent in other atmospheric gasses. What happens is that this matter "sinks" to depths in ocean waters, and does so at greater rates with greater water density. Cold water is denser than warm water, and this matter will sink faster, allowing for a greater rate of interaction. Basically, as water warms, the matter doesn't sink as quickly, meaning that this warmer water can't interact with as much CO2 in the same amount of time as cold water. Warm water will still absorb CO2, but simply not as quickly as cold water.

Another author asked if polar bears drown, and the answer is of course they do. They are mammals, like us humans. Just like we can, so can they. The same author's other question is a political one, and one I shall decline to answer. I believe the term used in these forums is "off topic," right?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 116
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/17/2009 8:26:32 AM

You have to remember that 95 % of scientists tell us that global warming is a serious issue right now and 95% of scientists told us in the late 70's that we were slipping back into another ice age.


That's an extraordinary statement for someone who places such a strong emphasis on the difficulty of 'proving' any given hypothesis. Please "prove", or at least document your claim that 95 percent of scientists told us something in the 70's that even then was considered a marginal theory.


Scientists will tell you the earth's temperature will rise by 5-7 percent over the next 20 years


Once again, can you document this assertion? I track the climate change issue pretty closely and haven't seen any claims approaching these.


What will the temperature be tomorrow in Cincinnati Ohio at 2pm?


For someone who believes so strongly in "proof" you appear to have little grasp of what constitutes it.

Just because I can't predict the exact closing price of Exxon stock next wednesday doesn't mean I can't predict with confidence that the current economic downturn will continue for the next few weeks at least, more likely months.

Predicting global climate trends is a completely different science than predicting local weather. And "proof" is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. A little research on the scientific method would serve you well.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 117
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/17/2009 12:27:07 PM
You missed my point completely.


I'm pretty sure I got your point. I fear you may have missed mine. "Proof" is a mathematical concept, and has no place in science, which deals with observations, predictions, liklihoods, and degrees of certainty. Math is a human invention, a language we often use in science. Science is all about discovery, adequate explanation, and dependable predictions.

I can prove to you that two plus two equals four simply because the result is a human definition, not a scientific discovery. I cannot prove to you that the ball I'm holding in my hand will fall to the floor when I release it. I can do adequate experiments to assert that it will with a high degree of confidence, but I can't prove it prior to the release event. Gravity, like evolution and anthropogenic climate change, are theories: theories with sufficient scientific support to allow us to make decisions with confidence, but not things that can be or ever will be 'proven'.

Interestingly, though, you made two mathematical assertions that I asked you to back up. You claimed that 95 percent of all scientists told us in the late seventies that we were headed for an ice age. I asked you to back up that assertion. Find me a source, any source, that has performed the calculation that results in that 95 percent result. Or explain how you performed that calculation yourself.

You also cited anonymous scientists who claim that we'll see a 5-7 percent rise in temperatures over the next 20 years. I simply asked you to support that with a citation source. That wouldn't prove, of course, whether or not the earth will or won't warm that much, but would at least support your assertion that someone, anyone, with scientific credentials has made such a claim.

We will NOT here, or anywhere else, prove what will happen to the earth's climate prior to actually observing what DOES happen. What we CAN establish is whether or not there is a high degree of agreement in the established scientific community that human activities are sufficiently impacting the climate that policy changes are in order to alter human activities for the good of all.

In the thousands of words I've posted here and elsewhere on the topic, that's all I've really tried to say: that the vast majority of peer reviewed climate scientists agree that human activities are negatively impacting the climate and that we need to accelerate policy shifts to minimize those negative impacts.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 119
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/17/2009 4:22:08 PM
The concept of a green house gas has a number of problems starting with the name itself. The heat in a green house has nothing to do with any gas inside it. Considering that the typical green house is for plants, it is typically starved of CO2 and many operators add CO2 to prevent plant death from lack of CO2. The reality is that the glass of a green house acts to reflect deep infrared radiated by the contents of a green house heated by visible light. The glass also acts to prevent convection that would carry heat away. The question should be why use the label "green house gas" if it is a flawed label? For this, one would have to examine the motives of those promoting the term.

Over a century ago, it was found that some infrared light would be absorbed by CO2. This is the basis for the global warming movement. The problem is that the absorption of IR by CO2 is not as simple as Al Gore would have people believe. CO2 does a good job of absorbing three narrow bands or colors of IR in the NEAR IR range. In the concentration in the atmosphere, these bands have done all the absorbing they are going to do in a few tens of feet. The atmosphere is miles deep. The effect of CO2 is well past saturation. Adding more is like adding more coats of red paint to a red car. This range of CO2 IR absorption corresponds to HOT objects, not temperate and certainly not cold as found on the surface of the earth. When the majority of the "evidence" of global warming is melting ice, there is a serious disconnect in the theory as radiation from the polar regions is very deep IR and thus very far from the absorption bands of CO2. Below these "energy" bands, CO2 is transparent.

There are gasses that impact the deep IR energy range. Most of these do so because of they have very weak chemical hydrogen bonds between molecules. CO2 has no hydrogen and no hydrogen bonds. Water vapor does and will absorb and radiate deep IR. The hydrogen bonds of water account for many of its wonderful properties we count on to survive just as we count on CO2 in the atmosphere for the plants we count on to survive. Back when the fossil fuels we count on were formed, the CO2 in the atmosphere was many times more than now. Instead of incinerating, life thrived.

Some here would spin this as some argument to waste and pollute. Far from it. Its an argument to stop making a religious and political movement out of poor science.
 zcy220
Joined: 1/14/2009
Msg: 121
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/18/2009 9:15:24 AM

The earth has only one molecule per 3000 of CO2 and that is not nearly enough to cause a greenhouse effect. Even 10 times as much CO2 would not cause any noticeable global warming. Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas on earth. Water vapor is.


But, ANY amount of CO2 in Earth's predominantly Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere will cause some amount of a greenhouse effect that relates to CO2.

And, the greenhouse "feedback effect" that water vapor exhibits would certainly be lower without the greenhouse "forcing effect" that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere causes, however little CO2 there may be in Earth's atmosphere...particularly when Earth and Venus are compared.

(A primary difference here is the observation that water vapor is extremely very short-lived in the atmosphere when compared with CO2.)

And, although at any given instant water vapor acts as a major "greenhouse gas," it could easily be argued that it's existence in Earth's atmosphere at that instant is, to a large degree, an effect of the existence of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere...and other non-water-vapor greenhouse gases.


For a more detailed analysis refer to here:

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

And here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 122
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/19/2009 7:25:34 PM
OF course water is a superior heat sink than is CO2. Almost anyone will tell you that a cloudless winter night is usually a colder one.


Are you claiming CO2 causes clouds to occur? Clouds tend to reflect most IR and visible light making clouds closer to a "green house" effect although we still have convection not found in a green house. If CO2 were in play as a significant IR broad spectrum absorber, it would cause heat in the upper atmosphere and thus reduce cloud cover. The reality is that CO has three narrow bands of absorption in the near IR, not broad spectrum. Most of the energy radiated by planet earth is deep IR, not near IR. The entire effect of CO2 is well past saturation but since it is narrow band, increasing concentrations will have very little effect.

Clouds are the key the climate. The controlling factor in cloud formation is particulates such as dust storms in the Sahara. The Sahara has been expanding for quite a few centuries leading to more dust and thus more clouds. More clouds in general lead to more climate heating such as that observed on Venus. The more heat, the greater the expansion of the Sahara. This is yet another unstable climate cycle system on planet earth that would have fundamental oscillation on the order of centuries. This oscillation would not be sinusoidal but asymptotic. Such a cycle would produce a wide array of harmonic sub cycles. Unless we could have well controlled sample data covering at least one full cycle with a sample frequency at least twice that of the highest frequency, then we cannot derive where we are in any given cycle. In short, we need at least two samples per day for several thousand years.

Desertification is not unlike the polar ice melt from ocean currents. The currents are propelled by temperature differentials, not just heat. The cold comes from the melting ice. The more the ice melts, the more energy for the engine until the ice is gone. Again, not a sinusoid and therefor an array of harmonics etc. Again, this would have a fundamental cycle on the order of thousands of years. The fossil record seems to indicate about 100,000 years.

Now we are really short on data needed yet the global warming crowd are projecting temperature accuracies of better than 1%. As a measurement expert with patents in the use of digital signal processing to measure real world parameters, I find these claims to be groundless. I currently work with IR based night vision and thermal imaging systems that cover the entire IR spectrum. I have been recognized for my environmental efforts for over 4 decades. I find this CO2 caused global warming religion stinks worse than a refinery. Just because the motive is good, it does not justify bad science to create bad policy. The ethanol mandates have resulted in huge environmental damage with dubious positive impact on fossil fuel use or pollution.

The way to a cleaner sustainable environment is more accurate and open minded knowledge of science in the general population. When so many people in the population are so way short of the science knowledge yet so adamant we need to empower more bureaucrats and politicians, there is a serious problem. When those policy makers are creating an entire market to trade in "credits", we are talking billions in profits on the backs of you and I. Is that a noble cause?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 7:53:15 AM
I caught the following in today's news and thought I'd pass it along. Note particularly the perspective of climatologists who actually study climate change:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html


(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 125
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 8:48:44 AM
If one were to survey any population about what is real about their religious beliefs, I suspect they would conclude they were real even though they neither could prove them nor would they feel a need to prove them.

Its not so much a question of is the climate changing as that is observable but what are the causes and better yet, the mechanisms. Humans cannot exist without making an impact on our planet but what is that impact? We dam rivers to divert water to crops. This requires clearing trees and other incumbent vegetation and wildlife to be replaced with our domesticated versions. This whole process can be viewed as positive or negative. Ones religious point of view, whether acknowledged as a religious point of view or not, determines that judgment. This line from your post is an excellent example of the religious facet:


"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

As with any religious belief, not only is there no debate, there is no compulsion to question. This is the antithesis of science. Also typical of this is the use of labels to dehumanize contrary points of view. The term "denialist" is the most common. It is the usual label in every opening sermon against those with opposing conclusions on sites like realclimate.org.

I don't question the ability of climate observers to observe the climate. Where I have my doubts is in their oversimplification of the physics such of CO2 "green house" gas mechanisms and extrapolating it to a global scale. The dismissal of natural mechanisms that explain the observed trends and fossil records is also an indication of a religious type bias. As with most religions, there are those who take advantage of believers for financial and political gain. This issues is rife with it. Note the hypocrisy of the leader of the movement itself, Al Gore, flying around to fund raising events for the cause in a private jet isolated from the public in their far more efficient public transportation. His investments in an artificial market are themselves revealing. When this is pointed out, one sees yet another parallel with organized religion having different denominations claiming he is not a “true believer”.

As an engineer, I deal with "nuances" that are largely ignored by academia as distractions from the point they are trying to get across. Unlike publishing a paper, the reality of the theory of my work is proven in the real world, not a vote of "peers" or surveys. I don't see any surprizes in the climate changes observed nor are those changes in conflict with fossil records of the past. Oversimplification of both the mechanisms and the observed parametric changes are par for the course.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 127
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 2:12:23 PM
Dave, try to understand it from my perspective. I'm not a scientist. I do have a basic understanding of science. If I want to know more about something relating to biology, I consult a biologist. If I want to know more about something relating to physics, I consult physicists. If I want to know about the climate, I consult climatologists.

It so happens, as this article illustrates, that there is an extraordinary level of agreement among climate specialists that human activities are significantly altering the climate. You, on the other hand, are not a climate specialist. You make claims about how CO2 operates in the atmosphere that you not 0nly can't support with a single other expert of any kind but that I can't find any reference to when I try to research your claims on the web. You ask me to take what you say on faith rather than believe what virtually every climate specialist has demonstrated through rigorous peer reviewed application of the scientific method.

It strikes me that it would be far more 'religious' of me to believe you than to believe those who have actually done climate research.

It's not a religion when I take my car to a mechanic to have it serviced. It's not a religion when I have my teeth worked on by my dentist. It's not religion when I accept what specialists in any field tell me UNTIL A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT IS MADE TO THE CONTRARY.

If you expect your arguments to be taken seriously you'll need to offer more than just "trust me, I know what I'm talking about". Don't just ask me to take your solitary view on faith alone, and don't insult me by calling my decision to believe those with bona fide climate credentials who DO present verifiable science "religion".

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 129
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 5:19:38 PM

If I want to know more about something relating to biology, I consult a biologist. If I want to know more about something relating to physics, I consult physicists. If I want to know about the climate, I consult climatologists.

If you wish to understand a machine, I would suggest you consult an engineer. If you wish to understand the nature of oscillatory engines, I would suggest you consult an engineering expert on such systems. If you wish to understand the nature of electromagnetic wave propagation in various media, I would suggest you consult experts in that area. If you want a pretty good prediction of tomorrows weather, consult a meteorologist.


keep religion the hell out of this discussion.

Good idea. Do you argue that man made CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming because you believe it will or because you know all the physics and mechanisms of Earth?


Do you honestly mean to tell me that you think that climatologists at NASA just "believe" in global warming and completely disregard science?
NASA is mostly bureaucrats who need to justify their income through missions they can sell. "Climate change" is the current PC name for just such a mission. China's space program has the moon as a mission largely based on the concept of mining Helium 3 from the surface and shipping it back to Earth for fusion fuel. The head of their project estimates three return shuttles per year could supply all mankind's energy needs. Using estimates of efficiency of current technology, I estimated 2200 pounds per year would be needed. No environmental wrecking to produce bio-fuel to compete with food prices, no need for an artificial market for "carbon credits", no covering the countryside with bird whackers, no damming every river in site, etc. Without the fear of global warming, NASA would not have a mission.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 5:38:04 PM

Those that try to tie global warming to pollution are disingenuous because there is no connection between the two and they know it.


Do you suppose we could reach an agreement that you won't tell me what I know and I won't tell you what you don't know?


However, there are no facts that prove humans contribute to global warming. There is proof that humans burn fossil fuel. There is proof that CO2 levels have increased during the last 60 years and we know that CO2 lag temperature changes. We also know that human activity contributes only 5 percent of CO2 and nature the other 95 percent.


First off, I already addressed the concept of "proof". I'll grant up front that I haven't proven and can't prove anything about global warming, other than that the vast majority of climate experts agree that humans DO have a significant impact on a warming planet. That doesn't prove them right. It only demonstrates that there is strong consensus among those who seriously study the issue.

If you want proof, go back to geometry class. The closest you'll ever get to 'proof' in science is observation. We can't afford to wait until we observe significant climate change to take action on it.

Without bothering to double check your numbers, even if it is true that humans only produce five percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, that's really not the issue. What matters is how much of the INCREASE in CO2 over the past two centuries human activities are responsible for.

If I were to strap a life jacket on someone, then attach their ankles to an anchor so that their mouth was barely above water level and started adding water to the pool, I might well make the claim that the majority of the water my victim was drowning in was not my doing, but that wouldn't absolve me of responsibility for the result of adding those last few inches of water.

Likewise, the CO2 balance on the planet is a delicate one. Human actions have significantly increased that concentration of late. And that's just part of the problem. Dramatic land use changes are also a significant factor. And there are other greenhouse gasses, Methane in particular, that play a major role.

While I'm no great fan of the media, I can't help but note that the mainstream media has lagged, not led the climate change issue. For far too long and still occasionally today fringe skeptics are given equal billing with peer-reviewed climate scientists, creating an illusion of controversy that just doesn't exist. Contrast the 97 percent of climate scientists who agree that human activities play a major role in a warming planet with the percentage of articles pro and con regarding the issue, and the media is clearly not guilty of over-hyping anthropogenic climate change.

I don't rely on the mainstream press for my primary information. I look to science journals for that. You know, the folks doing real science?

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 7:50:03 PM
So if climate changes naturally, as it has in the past, we should create even more damage in other parts of the environment to counteract what many believe is caused by a conspiracy of energy companies?

If you were a bureaucrat working in some government pecking order and wanted to say those around you who are responsible for getting the funding that is paying your salary are wrong in doing so, do you think any would speak up? Whistle blowers usually catch hell even when there is a clear wrong doing that doesn't effect their salary. What do you think would happen when its a matter of unresolved technical disagreement? There are plenty of right wingnuts and social spending first types that would love to cut NASA and are looking for excuses. The bureaucrats know it. Remember the engineers who tried to delay the challenger launch? I fear NASA pretty much became a bureaucracy without a cause after the moon missions ended. It seems they are a charter airline renting time on the vomit comet and lobbying for money. The Houston center is now a collection of new office buildings for bureaucrats and a Disney attraction. As for innovation, that was the past and most then came from the cold war. Not much innovation in a low orbit space truck whose engineering rules dictate "only proven technology" in the interest of safety. Yea that worked.

Is there some actual science to be discussed in the "Science of global warming" thread? As we work our way up the science ladder, you find 'A' says yes because 'B' says so. 'B' says yes because 'C' says so.'C' says yes because 'D' says so............. At some point, we find a singular source. At NASA its seems 'Z' is a guy named Hansen who appears to refuse to debate the topic but Al Gore is his buddy.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 134
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:51:10 PM

Claims that most climatolists and scientists believe man contributes to global warming could not be further from the truth. If they are referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change.


No, I was not referring to the IPCC report or summary. I was referring to the survey just published two days ago in the American Geophysical Union journal EOS:


Public release date: 19-Jan-2009
Contact: Paul Francuch
University of Illinois at Chicago

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real

While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

###

 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 135
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:19:32 AM

Wvwaterfall I have no doubt that you one of the people paid to support a belief in global warming.


Wow, that's quite a leap. In fact, it's such a preposterous claim that I laughed out loud as I read it, having just juggled my finances to eek through another month of what few bills I have.

Not that it's any of your business, but I LOST my state government environmental policy job a couple of years ago for, as much as anything, pushing too hard for this coal-dependent state to start planning for a carbon constrained future. Ironically, just a couple of months ago, the Governor who asked for my resignation made a speech telling our coal industry leaders that they needed to do exactly that. Apparently I was two years ahead of his comfort level, and thus am now making less than half the money I was making then.

I'm quite familiar with the petition of 17,000 "scientists" you mention. Unlike the survey I mentioned, which was taken from scientists carefully screened for their climate expertise, pretty much anyone qualified for the bogus list you cite. I would have qualified, had I wanted to add my name. There are ample names on that list of people who had no idea their name had been added. That "petition" has been thoroughly debunked, as a quick google search would have shown you. One such source is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2


The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.


Do you have any similar source specifically challenging the survey I cited?

dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 136
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/21/2009 5:17:55 PM

but do you mean to tell me that if minimizing our carbon footprint via using energy efficiency and more sustainable forms of energy production that the climate would collapse? that we have to keep producing co2 at our current rates?


I am all for efficiency and much of my career has been in that pursuit. My house was full of compact fluorescent lamps long before most people knew they existed. What I find disturbing is the massive and environmentally destructive knee jerk reactions. Two good examples are the ethanol mandates and wind power. The first is of questionable value in saving fossil fuel use and is proving destructive of sea life in the gulf. The "dead zone" from the Mississippi has nearly doubled as a result. The die-off of sea life over thousands of square miles has resulted in massive releases of CO2 and Methane. Interesting bit of trivia huh? The tens of thousands of massive bird whackers being built plan to extract terawatt hours of energy from the very breezes that carry gulf moisture to the heartland. The power for this natural engine comes from rather low pressure differentials in the atmosphere. What allows the winds to flow in the pattern that they flow now is the lack of drag on the flat grass lands of the plains. This land will no longer be without significant drag. The wind currents cannot help but change and that will likely result in prolonged drought in the vary places where the ethanol lobby pushed through its mandates. What we will see from all this CO2 BS is clear cutting rain forest to grow fuel etc. Not a pleasant thought. I enjoyed the video of the wind turbine exploding in Denmark. It demonstrates what will be happening here when these things age and parts wear out. All this while an analysis of the spectra of absorption of the various gasses of the atmosphere, particularly CO2, show the basis for the knee-jerk reactions are misguided. The momentum and financial incentive have caused the creation of a religious-political cult of daunting size. How many people here are in lock step with the dogma?


Colleges are teaching people to be good technicians so they can do their job, but the colleges don't teach them to think.


This is pretty much the norm. Tenure is a also a serious problem creating severe stagnation. A few instructors claim to encourage thinking “out of the box” but so very few can see out of their own box to know what that is. In much of my university experience, I challenged professors by going beyond the assignment and presenting a “better way” to analyze the data, process data, or solve the solution. In every case, I also gave them the answer they wanted and compared the two. In every case, my extra work was initially punished with a reduced grade. I appealed every time and the grade was changed to a perfect score but certainly no credit for the extra effort or thinking out of the box. For that reason I did not seek higher degrees as I felt too confined by the walls of their box. The lack of credentials have cost me but still, I work with PhDs all the time and find myself the guru to many people. The technological hurdles to overcome our energy mess and protect the environment are not that tough but we have to get out of the box and society has to change its values for that to happen. Right now, its more important whether some starlet is wearing her underwear while destroying brain cells than overcoming our technical challenges. This translates to financial rewards for celebrities and the lawyers who keep them out of prison. The vast majority of those making decisions in government are lawyer celebrities. Virtually none are skilled in technology yet they claim to know technology. Kelley, its more than just the schools that have problems. The technological issues are just a symptom of a society with value problems.


While there is general agreement among the various climate system models that significant global warming will occur in the next 50 years, many crucial details of magnitude, timing, and specific regional responses-especially for hydrological variables, such as precipitation-are still very much in doubt.

Being as clouds are the most significant factor in atmospheric temperature and water vapor actually does absorb deep infrared light where CO2 does not, it would seem the models are missing something very important. The computer models are actually modified weather prediction models that work reasonably well for weather prediction largely because they use error feedback to adjust themselves. When examining long term climate change, this feature is not available. The driving element for precipitation and cloud formation is particulates. These come from dust and smoke be it natural or man-made and from the tons of space dust hitting the atmosphere. Not exactly easy to model. The alarmists are using these programs to predict temperatures to within one degree a hundred years from now with programs that can't do that good three days from now under far better conditions. I understand a survey was recently done on the monitors used to make these projections and that most were wrongly installed. I have already mentioned how the sampling process itself is flawed using these monitors.

I am a recognized expert in the field of measurement technology using large data arrays and I am not employed by any fossil fuel entity. I am not parroting anyone. I rarely cite any source other than myself. I certainly don't respond to some chanting chorus as if more votes can change reality. If you wish to explore my comments, I suggest you do your own research as any reference I might cite would likely be biased and not serve your wants.
 worst_username_ever
Joined: 1/15/2009
Msg: 138
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:08:06 PM
Hey, uh, you guys know that the energy output of the sun fluctuates, right? In case you forgot, the sun is that nuclear ball of fire 1 million times bigger than the earth. Something tells me that has a bigger effect on our temperature than farting cows.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 139
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:53:39 PM

One-third participation does not make a valid statement about an issue.


No? What percent participation do most opinion polls work from? Far less than 33%. The margin for error would be very small indeed with a one third sample.

The point that keeps coming forward no matter how you look at it is that the more expertise people in general or scientists in particular have regarding the climate, the greater the consensus that human activities negatively impact the climate. Whether it's surveys like these or peer reviewed articles published in respected scientific journals, there is NO debate over the basic question of whether humans impact the climate.

The only place you'll find such debate is in the general media and in public forums like this.

The unresolved issues center around how much, how soon, and what can we do about it. Which is exactly where the Obama administration will be focused in the very near future.

Finally.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 141
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:06:05 AM

Can you name another field, other than science, where it is self correcting?

Engineering

That is..where one group will examine a body of evidence and say "I/we was/were wrong before..the data I have now indicate differently?" certainly not politics, business, and religion.

Don't need a vote. Either your understanding of the physics and mechanisms prove themselves or they fail. Kind of like the engineers who opposed the shuttle launch in cold weather because the seals might fail. Those engineers were punished for such blasphemy. As was pointed out to them, politics was more important than safety concerns and the launch must go on schedule.


Dude...opening up critiques of wind power and ethanol don't invalidate global climate change concerns. That's like saying because fat and cellulite creams don't work then obesity doesn't exist

The point is; mandates forced on everyone exist because of the misguided alarmists. It's like mandating everybody use fat and cellulite creams even though they don't work, to cure obesity even when not everyone is obese.


witness 8 of the warmest years on record

The ice age cycle is about 100,000 years. How good are your records? Being as most of the instrument sites for the records we do have are invalid because of wrong installation, poor maintenance, and limited site selection, that doesn't stop the alarms. Even the paint has changed. Depending on cloud cover, nearby plants, pavement etc. to monitors, what could be seen is higher peak temperatures as opposed to higher average temperatures. The problem with using high and low temperature readings instead of time fixed sampling is that the data exaggerates averages and is not useful for analysis of cyclic mechanisms. The fall of the Soviet union eliminated a large number of temperature monitors across Siberia. Since then, the so called "average" temperature readings have been limited to Europe, North America, Japan and Australia. I wonder if these areas have experienced any local changes near polulation centers and thus monitoring stations...........

I have explained a number of natural mechanisms on Earth that all produce long term cyclic climate changes and virtually all of them will oscillate in non-sinusoidal cycle. To someone skilled in the analysis of such systems, it would be clear there will be many higher frequency cycles at harmonic frequencies of these basic forcing functions. Until you have sampled your data set at a frequency at least twice the rate of the highest forcing function and at least twice that of the highest measurable harmonic, your results will be inaccurate. This is basic sampling math. The highest major forcing function is the daytime temperature cycle. Even this is distorted by rapid temperature swings at the moment of dusk and dawn becasue of the fixed horizon. That would tend to mean we need temperature samples on say an hourly basis for 100,000 years. Using short term trend analysis for a first order extrapolation way beyond even your sample window is absurd but that is exactly what is being sold. If you feel you can argue against that, you are welcome to point out the error of my ways. Quoting bureaucrats who make a living off the fear seems to me to be a weak argument but everybody must have their heroes.

My list of issued patens is all in test equipment design but I currently work more with aircraft systems involving everything from deep infrared night vision, to enhanced near infrared night vision, through the visible light spectrum as well as aircraft information systems. I work closely with PhDs in optics and thermal transfer. I was the youngest engineer with IBM, at least in this part of the country, in 1973 and worked on alternate energy projects in college particularly related to wind power. If you feel you have a more knowledgeable source in the whole picture, then by all means, learn from them as I do, face to face. I don’t find bureaucrats all that technically skilled no matter how many are voting.

The title of “scientist” is interesting. Can you explain how it is earned? I prefer the title “dude” as it’s not so nerdy and out of touch with reality or smack of some bureaucratic suck-up protecting his job. I've done pretty good doing the "impossible" at least according to experts. If I had accepted their votes, I would have been another drone following the herd.
 Orion67
Joined: 12/29/2005
Msg: 142
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:45:02 AM
I haven't got any serious opinions about global warming and haven't made up my mind yet so I will remain neutral here. I know that the planet Venus is really HOT HOT and almost all of the atmosphere there is carbon dioxide. My yard has many trees, shrubs and plants and during the summer, it is cool. I attribute this to shade and the transpiration of moisture by the trees and plants, kind of like natural air conditioning.
It seems to me that the winters in Ohio are warmer and the thickness of ice on Lake Erie has been decreasing over the years. The last few years, there has not been any good ice for ice fishing.

It sure does get hot in Death Valley and it sure gets hot in amusement parks when the sun beats down on all of that concrete and blacktop. And all of the concrete and black top of all of the roads, highways and parking lots act like heat sinks during the day and release heat back into the air at night. Oh, and all of those roofs of homes and buildings do the same. And look at all of the light pollution (from lights) at night that must also release a lot of heat into the air. Just some things to think about.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 143
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 11:50:40 AM

C'mon Dave..I know you know that engineering is intimately tied in with science - they are inseparable.

That is the point. The politics of voting is not even if the subject of the vote is science. Cold fusion was popular until it could not physically be repeated. The popularity of AGW does not need to be proven as its only published papers and the very publishing of the papers is profit. The applied science of engineering cannot be wrong and cannot ignor other major factors or its doomed to fail. What people vote means nothing.


But for the same reasons you have taken fear-mongering to task as if it were some widespread occurence here,

Has you been paying attention? Gore gets the Nobel prize. Ethanol mandates, carbon credits-cap and trade, and even serious discussion of taxing cows. All this political power comes from the widespred fear mongering.


I'm sure you would also agree that we should not turn a completely blind eye to an issue and it possible consequences

My point is to learn and understand the science, don't pass that on to politicians with a motive. That is the blind eye, not ignoring our environment.
 b0rg
Joined: 12/14/2007
Msg: 144
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/23/2009 2:02:35 PM
Nope. The premises used to nullify the survey results are faulty.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…


Msg 240…

IP addresses do not ensure one email recipient -- one vote. That is so because after answering the set of questions, the scientist can walk over to the next machine in the next room in the facitily he works in, and vote again. Then repeat the process until he gets tired or runs out of computers.

What you are referring to is “ballot box stuffing”. Questionpro.com, like most online survey services, has techniques to detect and prevent this kind of vote rigging. IP address tracking and cookie insertion is just one of the methods invoked and is likely what is mentioned in literature about the Doran and Zimmerman poll. However, there is a battery of active and passive techniques used to identify and screen out such tampering. It isn’t that easy to tamper with cyber ballots anymore.


Msg 240…

The respondends were also a self-selected group within a selected group. If one assumes that every recipient was honest and voted only once, still, less than one-third of those contacted answered the questionnaire.

They are certainly voluntary. But that is neither here nor there. If the response rate is statistically significant, there is a representative sampling of positive and negative responses. The total response volume only has to exceed this threshold (at least by North American mathematics).


Msg 240…

One-third participation does not make a valid statement about an issue.

The total response volume only has to exceed the statistical significance minimum threshold.


Msg 247…

"some are arguing here. that they are knowingly falsifying data" I donno, maybe someone claimed that. Everything is up to interpretation right now, that's why there is no consensus. No data needs to be falsified if the amount of it is so little that no consesus can be forced on the community by way of an overwhelming proof. Hence the interpretative nature of the interpretations and I simply choose to go with one instead of the other. If it was not left for interpretation, because proof existed, then the debate would not be going on.

Nope. The “everything is up to interpretation” is just another way of saying it’s “random” or that there is some other mechanism to explain the results. It is essentially a plea to ignorance. We could use that argument for any phenomena that occurs without human measurement of each and every variable (which is pretty much most things). We see this excuse all the time. It usually starts with the phrase, “Unless we know ALL the facts…” We haven’t personally seen ALL the people in New York City, but it is doubtful that all that we haven’t seen have purple hair. Now we can use the excuse of “unless we know ALL the facts” to say that maybe they all do… Right…

There is a great deal of corroboration in observed behaviour that matches what the climate model predicts. However, most deniers speciously hold climate science to a perfectionist’s requirement of absolute precision. In this way, they can maintain the false notion that there is reason to doubt. It is equivalent of someone stating that unless science can tell me the exact speed they are going, well perhaps they aren’t moving at all… it’s all interpretation then.

If there were no doubt there would be no debate? LoL. If that were true, we wouldn’t keep seeing people post “the atmosphere is optically thick”, or, “it’s the fluctuation in solar output” mythology ad nauseam (especially when their errors have been directly pointed out to them as many times as they post up the junk.) Nope. There is debate because some need (for whatever reason outside of really seeking the truth) to dismiss climate science. It goes on because there is a small but vocal group that wants to create doubt where doubt does not exist.

As far as consensus, it is becoming apparent that if just ONE scientist disagrees, deniers will hoist him or her up on their shoulders and parade around town proudly shouting that there is NO CONSENSUS.


Msg 247…

I believe people choose one or another interpretations according to their temperament.

Opinion or not, this is just conveniently ignoring the evidence as well as the discipline of avoiding bias that scientific practice demands.


Msg 247…

I am a contrarian, I tend to be very un-sheepish (unless around women). I think for myself, I come up with my own theories, false or true, no matter. I invent things. I am convinced that most scientists who side with the non-human effect on climate change are sorta dehumanized robots who look at things of science with no emotions, unless it's about the science of emotions. You know, Asperger's sufferers. Those who like to blame humans for the warming, they're like clever autodafe-directors. They like to keep the population feeling guilty, because they live in guilt and they can't imagine how somebody can live a happy and fulfilling life without the yoke of guilt.

We are B0rg.

This is just a veiled way of implying that those who agree with what climate science are unthinking sheep. That is a wholly unsupported opinion yet one that is common with most that deny the impact industrialization has had on the climate system.

Why would people feel “guilty”? Unless they were personally around for the past 200 years and actively promoted the industrial practices of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is difficult to expect such remorse from the average citizen. Does one have any shred of evidence that climate science as a whole (or even in part) are seeking to “guilt” people into understanding? (We are talking scientists here, not AL GORE).

Certainly mitigation strategies may involve some form of evocation of personal duty, but the science is still the science. To stray from that in this discussion is merely deflection to avoid exposure of non-substantiation in contrarian claims.

Nice try, though.


Msg 247…

"statistically speaking...one third participation could indeed make a valid statement if it could be shown to be representative of the entire population" This is true, but there is the conditional, there is the condition which at this point is not at all assured. It is a point that some people would like to prove or have others see that way. There is no way from our point to prove it, as "a representative sample" could only be interpreted if we had a view of the entire population, which then would render the significance of the representative sample moot. The problem is that 1. the gropup is self-selected and 2. the mechanics of the poll allow inaccuracies and prejudicial results. So this point about how it "could" be valid is null and void.

This is just attempting to dismiss the nature of statistical analyses when it apparently refutes ones argument. It is equivalent to picking 20 m&m’s out of a bag of 100, seeing they are all blue and declaring that the rest are equally likely to be red rather than blue… based on nothing more than believing that the bag should have been all red ones to begin with.

The group is self selected? Irrelevant, since purposeful naysayers are represented regardless of self selection.

The mechanics of the poll allow inaccuracies? Unless one can prove that Questionpro.com did not apply a reasonable amount of “anti ballot box stuffing” processes, this is wholly unsupported (articles may have mentioned “IP address” uniqueness, but this doesn’t mean that is all they use.) This renders such accusation null and void.


Msg 247…

And if it were truly random, and the necessary integrity would be there, it would still be nothing more than opinion. Not enough evidence to support either side. This is like deciding by voting whether latmus turns blue in acid or in base liquids. A few experiments, and it's proven that it's not the other way around. We still need those few experiments / observations in the climate change scrutiny.

“Nothing more than opinion” is purposely confusing the poll and the subject matter. Of course the poll is an opinion by its very nature. However, the science that the poll refers to is NOT merely opinion.

“Not enough evidence to support either side”. This just a permutation of the tired old ploy of “we will equate the sides based solely on being opposite”. Nope. There is plenty of corroboration and factual records that support the views of climate scientist. As it has been demonstrated even here on these threads (based on the numerous false claims proven to be false), there is really NOTHING supporting the contrarian view.


Msg 247…

"but I don't find all of their findings suspect" So don't I. I just realize that their findings are not pointing at any specific and hard-and-fast interpretation. The findings they have are accurate, I believe, but their interpretation of it is not reliable, as either we don't have enough findings or we don't know how to handle them if we do have enough findings.

Essentially this is just down to opinion on what one considers to be adequate interpretation of the data. In this way we have come full circle. The point of the opinion poll is to determine if people consider the interpretations to be adequate. They necessarily ask climate scientists since that is their area of expertise. If one considers that “biased”, then one is welcome to diagnose their personal ailments based on a random sampling of people off the street rather than that of a several physicians. Caution; results may vary; consult a random sampling of people. LoL.


Msg 247…

"hard to demonstrate how they benefit monetarily by being fraudulent" It's a common American misconception that money is the end all and the be all. In most cases in life, yes. But there is also the steadfast fidelity to a philosophy. A commitment to a belief. The belief in this case is not the fact of science, but that humans must feel guilt, so some scientists may be swayed and are without being fraudulent.

In the context of the original statement, “benefit monetarily” refers to specious accusations (in whole or implied) that scientists who agree with the current findings are doing so for ulterior reasons. Regardless of those ulterior reasons, it is the purely unsupported nature of such motives that was criticized. To focus on whether money is the payout is merely deflecting that valid assessment into a discussion on forms of payment.

If one feels that scientists are attempting to “guilt” the common citizen into compliance, please provide some evidence of this, or admit that this is wholly unsupported and biased opinion.


Msg 247…


"apparently, you are completely distrustful of their findings." Not at all. You must get beyond appearances. Of course, by findings I mean data (as in "I found a piece of new evidence") whereas you may mean interpretation ("I find you guilty of the charges.")

This is just arguing semantics to avoid the appraisal. Based on the information supplied, there is indication that some hold a view of “disbelief” then attempt to justify it with conjured evidence.

In more extreme cases, they will keep referring to debunked myths ad nauseam. Need proof of that? Have a look at this thread alone. See how often myths like the OISM Oregon petition is brought in, or the “atmosphere is optically thick” fallacy, or the “it’s all natural” ploy. There are other threads that will even prove that some of these myths are repeated even AFTER they are DIRECTLY shown to be false.


Msg 247…

(From another post:)
Can you name another field, other than science, where it is self correcting?
The only non-evidence based fields are philosophy and religion. We can cosider all fields as scientific if they are evidence based.

No, I cannot name another field which is self-correcting as science. The other two are philosophy and religion, and neither is self-correcting.

You win.

Yep. Science encourages healthy cynicism. The problem is when people misinterpret that to mean any contrarian view is a valid based solely on being contrary. The proof that deniers do so outside of logic is clear. When we see the same fallacies being promoted regardless of how many times they are refuted (“the atmosphere is optically thick”, “it’s the sun”, “Some glaciers are growing”, “climate scientists cannot possibly have any practical experience”, etc…) it points to propaganda to support an agenda OUTSIDE of seeking the truth.
.
.
.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming