Global Warming

Global Warming

The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.

Given the timespan of a thousand or so years, the likelihood of common action is questionable. The Bush administration has already demurred on a national plan and other countries have fudged.
While it is easy to focus in on that bad news, the likelihood of China, India and other rapidly developing nations to adopt stringent regulations is slim.

What do we do?
............................
Outcomes of the 2005 report are available at:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, Lindzen doubts whether CO2 is the culprit that AGW proponents say. He's not denying the GW, just the A.

Perhaps he does, but that's certainly not what the paper you cite says. Nice try, though.

Originally posted by Redem:

Some positive feedbacks are known, I don't know if there are any significant cooling feedbacks.

Here you again seem to reduce the whole issue to warming/cooling, although I'm much more interested in consequences of temperature changes rather than changes themselves. Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more snow, which compensates for ice loss. Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which cause both positive and negative feedback depending on circumstances, length of cloudy weather etc. That kind of stuff modern climate "science" doesn't know squat about, and a billion other things I and you don't know squat about.

Originally posted by vangrieg:

Here you again seem to reduce the whole issue to warming/cooling, although I'm much more interested in consequences of temperature changes rather than changes themselves.

The entire post before that was dealing with that.

Originally posted by vangrieg:

Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more snow, which compensates for ice loss. Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which cause both positive and negative feedback depending on circumstances, length of cloudy weather etc.

No, it does it. Were it to be true we would be seeing the increased snow compensating for increased temperature already, given the rapid loss of ice in the north, the slow loss in the south, and the overall loss of ice around the world, it's clearly not.
Water vapour is a warming force, overall.

Originally posted by vangrieg:

That kind of stuff modern climate "science" doesn't know squat about, and a billion other things I and you don't know squat about.

They know full well about water vapour.

Originally posted by Redem:

They know full well about water vapour.

Sure they do, but they don't know how it will affect the climate in the long run. The stuff about snow I learned following one of the pro-AGW links you guys gave here (it wasn't in the main article, and they of course didn't say it would totally compensate, but they admitted its exact effect is unkown). The stuff about clouds is another uncertain thing because when the sky gets cloudy for a prolonged period of time it does have a cooling effect because the surface doesn't get heated by the sun. That's also from a pro-AGW site, and they also admitted its effect is unkown. And these are just two little things I know aren't easy to figure out, let alone model.

And no, it's not true that if the effect was there we would have seen it by now - this doesn't have to be a linear relationship at all.

Originally posted by vangrieg:

Originally posted by Redem:

Some positive feedbacks are known, I don't know if there are any significant cooling feedbacks.

Here you again seem to reduce the whole issue to warming/cooling, although I'm much more interested in consequences of temperature changes rather than changes themselves. Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more snow, which compensates for ice loss. Warming causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which cause both positive and negative feedback depending on circumstances, length of cloudy weather etc. That kind of stuff modern climate "science" doesn't know squat about, and a billion other things I and you don't know squat about.

We do know about it. We've seen the Arctic sea ice, Arctic ice sheets, Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers melting. We simply observe these phenomena. They are not a matter of hypothesis or prediction, but simple observation.

Originally posted by schapel:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, Lindzen doubts whether CO2 is the culprit that AGW proponents say. He's not denying the GW, just the A.

Perhaps he does, but that's certainly not what the paper you cite says. Nice try, though.

From the paper:

To see what one particular difficulty is, consider the following conceptual situation:
We instantaneously double CO2. This will cause the characteristic emission level to rise
to a colder level with an associated diminution of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
The resulting radiative imbalance is what is generally referred to as radiative forcing.
However, the resulting warming will eventually eliminate the radiative imbalance as the
system approaches equilibrium. The actual amount of warming associated with
equilibration as well as the response time will depend on the climate feedbacks in the
system. These feedbacks arise from the dependence of radiatively important substances
like water vapor (which is a powerful greenhouse gas) and clouds (which are important
for both infrared and visible radiation) on the temperature. If the feedbacks are positive,
then both the equilibrium warming and the response time will increase; if they are
negative, both will decrease. Simple calculations as well as GCM results suggest
response times on the order of decades for positive feedbacks and years or less for
negative feedbacks [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998, and references therein]. The main
point of this example is to illustrate that the climate system tends to eliminate radiative
imbalances with characteristic response times.

Lindzen, in more understandable layman's terms:

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

Source.

I've done some research on Lindzen, and he predicted that there will be no further global warming over the next 20 years. He even said he would be willing to bet on it. When someone took him up on his offer, he was willing to give only 50:1 odds. That is, if he was right and there were no warming, be would get $10000. But if he was wrong and there was warming, he would pay only $200. He doesn't seem to be willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Some other climate change skeptics came forward to accept the bet. In 2018 we will know the results of the bet. So there we have it -- there's a hypothesis and a prediction. Next, comes the observation that will confirm or deny the hypothesis. Until then, however, it's just a hypothesis.

Remember, any scientist can make any statement he or she wants to. The proof, however, comes when what they predict is observed or not observed. Lindzen can surely state that carbon dioxide is not causing warming, but he needs some evidence to back up his claim. What I'm looking for is a scientific paper that not only proposes a hypothesis that refutes AGW, but also gives evidence which confirms the hypothesis.

Originally posted by schapel:

Remember, any scientist can make any statement he or she wants to. The proof, however, comes when what they predict is observed or not observed. Lindzen can surely state that carbon dioxide is not causing warming, but he needs some evidence to back up his claim. What I'm looking for is a scientific paper that not only proposes a hypothesis that refutes AGW, but also gives evidence which confirms the hypothesis.

Which goes to show that the science isn't really "settled". Which is really my only point.

Originally posted by schapel:

But if he was wrong and there was warming, he would pay only $200. He doesn't seem to be willing to put his money where his mouth is.

No, he's saying he isn't certain. He doesn't know. Nor do you.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by schapel:

Remember, any scientist can make any statement he or she wants to. The proof, however, comes when what they predict is observed or not observed. Lindzen can surely state that carbon dioxide is not causing warming, but he needs some evidence to back up his claim. What I'm looking for is a scientific paper that not only proposes a hypothesis that refutes AGW, but also gives evidence which confirms the hypothesis.

Which goes to show that the science isn't really "settled". Which is really my only point.

But, you're somehow forgetting that we have confirmed AGW. Remember that Arrhenius predicted the warming in the 19th century, and then we observed it?

By the way, there is evidence to suggest that clouds are a positive feedback, not a negative feedback as Lindzen claims.

oh no....not ANOTHER global warming scandal....This one is from New Zealand

New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

more HERE

Originally posted by schapel:

But, you're somehow forgetting that we have confirmed AGW. Remember that Arrhenius predicted the warming in the 19th century, and then we observed it?

So you'd be the first to take Lindzen up on his bet, whatever the stakes. I'd bet not.

Originally posted by Purdi:

This is anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.

And while we're talking about anti-intellectualism and anti-science, we have this email from Michael Mann, (allegedly, anyway):

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike

That's politics or religion, not science.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

while we're talking about anti-intellectualism and anti-science, we have

.....the recent news that now the raw data for 20 years of research was dumped.....How convenient....Just when everyone finds out about how those leaked emails referring to "destroying data rather than letting other scientists see it". This isn't good science at all. It's fraud in the name of science, on a global scale.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam

Originally posted by shoust:

This just gets better and better.

Or, to be more exact, closer and closer to Copenhagen.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Purdi:

WTF is the "American Geophysical Society"? If it is at all notable, how come Google doesn't know anything about it?

I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that Google "knew" about it. WTF's bothering you?

It doesn't know about it as a notable publication. It's barely mentioned in some footnotes somewhere.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Purdi:

No, there is no agenda behind the science. The science reflects the facts.

Unless those facts you speak of so robustly have been manipulated & massaged to show a different slant than the one that actually exists. CRU anyone? Tip Of The Climategate Iceberg..

Yet another disgustingly dishonest hit piece by an individual who is either deeply ignorant or deeply dishonest. Observe:

"they now realize that attempts to continue stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests is no longer an option"

The FOIA requests were for data which wasn't owned by CRU. They licensed it from someone else, and had no right what so ever to pass it on. In fact, they were specifically told that this was not allowed, under any circumstances. Also, they were flooded with 50 FOIA requests in 5 days. Malicious Denial of Service attacks like that just go to show what a disgusting bunch of idiots these denialists are.

That link is nothing but a pathetically disgusting hit piece promoting the blatant lie that the CRU hack is somehow a big scandal. It isn't really. If you read all the quote-mined text in context, you will realize that the "controversy" is nothing but a manufactroversy, manufactured by right-wing loons whose ultimate goal is to destroy science and replace it with religious faith.

Then again, I'm easy. Prove to me beyond a shadow of any doubt that mankind is the culprit & I'll --once verified-- believe you, short of that kindly remove your grubby little hand from my back pocket & begone!

The scientific consensus is very clear here. And some quote-mined and out of context e-mails from half a dozen out of tens of thousands of climate scientists does not change that. It is you who chose to reject scientific consensus because of your own political beliefs. That is your own problem.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

There have been many links to scientific papers on this subject.

And none of them contradicted the consensus. At best, they discussed smaller details which in no way contradicted the overall picture.

I have seen several of these lists of "scientific papers". Every single one of them contains actual papers that are being misrepresented by the denialists, or fake papers that are of no scientific value what so ever.

An Aussie poster some time back gave facts, figures and links but they were pushed aside.

Translated: An Aussie poster some time back came up with lies and deception, but was exposed.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Redem:

Show us some evidence that the CRU massaged or manipulated data in an untoward manner.

I humbly suggest you might start your own research by entering "CRU manipulated data" into Google & see what treasures you might uncover. ;

All I cand find is a bunch of quote-mined nonsense. Specifics, please!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Redem:

Without the greenhouse effect, of which CO2 is responsible for the majority, life would be impossible. We've pretty much doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, to think that has not had an effect is laughable. When it's coupled with a rapid warming trend that is not accounted for via any other known cause, we're far beyond a shadow of a doubt already.

Sounds like your convinced. Good for you. Sorry to hear it, but good for you. I applaud your faithful convictions.

This is waiting for a reply:

Originally posted by schapel:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Then again, I'm easy. Prove to me beyond a shadow of any doubt that mankind is the culprit & I'll --once verified-- believe you, short of that begone!

You seem to dismiss all evidence presented. What sort of evidence would you accept? Why not prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that mankind isn't the culprit? After all, it's easier to falsify a hypothesis than to confirm it. Where's the evidence that the warming is natural? No one can cite even a single scientific paper that reaches that conclusion or even casts doubt upon AGW.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Lindzen, who seems to have the strongest argument in AGW skepticism. Knock yourself out.

That is hosted on "Leif and Vera Svalgaard's Home Page". Huh? Has it undergone peer review? Has it been published? Also, what does it actually say?

Originally posted by Purdi:

There's too much political capital and financial capital riding on the AGW hypothesis.

This is anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.

It's also an "inconvenient truth".

But it is irrelevant to the science. And it is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

You attempt to slur Lindzen by pointing out some tenuous connection to Big Oil. Profit comes in all forms, including green ones. If Lindzen's wrong, it should be a simple matter of pointing out his scientific errors rather than pointing out that he's (predictably) a Shill For Big Oil And Enemy Of The Planet.

First you will have to point me to a peer-reviewed publication of his. Then you will have to explain the fact that he has constantly been found lying on behalf of Big Business (did you see the quote about smoking?).

Originally posted by Redem:

Show us some evidence that the CRU massaged or manipulated data in an untoward manner.

Why has Phil Jones stepped aside for the time being?

Stop changing the subject. Evidence, please.

Originally posted by IDX2:

oh no....not ANOTHER global warming scandal....This one is from New Zealand

Please link to a verifiable source, not some random wingnut blog.

.....the recent news that now the raw data for 20 years of research was dumped.....How convenient....Just when everyone finds out about how those leaked emails referring to "destroying data rather than letting other scientists see it". This isn't good science at all. It's fraud in the name of science, on a global scale.

Even more disgusting dishonesty from the deniers. The "dumped data" was actually data they couldn't use anymore, and they couldn't pass it on to someone else because it was licensed data, and the owners specifically demanded that the data not be handed out. So when they needed more space, they deleted the data which the owner had the original copy of anyway.

No data was destroyed. Only a local copy of some data was deleted.

When will the deniers stop lying?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Purdi:

This is anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.

And while we're talking about anti-intellectualism and anti-science, we have this email from Michael Mann, (allegedly, anyway):

This e-mail shows that an already crappy journal was taken over by people with a political agenda. Because the journal could no longer be trusted at all, they didn't want to give it credibility it didn't deserve. Nothing more than that.

That's politics or religion, not science.

Actually, as I just explained, this is yet another case of the deniers misrepresenting the scientists. In this case the journal was taken over by pushers of pseudoscience, which means that the journal no longer had any scientific integrity. Simple as that.

I have no idea why you bring this up now. It has been discussed extensively.

Originally posted by shoust:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/al-gores-family-linked-to-corrupt-oilman-716413.html

This just gets better and better.

What's the relevance?

Also, the Guilt by Association fallacy. Classy

Originally posted by vangrieg:

The stuff about clouds is another uncertain thing because when the sky gets cloudy for a prolonged period of time it does have a cooling effect because the surface doesn't get heated by the sun. That's also from a pro-AGW site, and they also admitted its effect is unkown. And these are just two little things I know aren't easy to figure out, let alone model.

Diffuclt, but not impossible to model. You seem to be basing your entire argument on the gamble that we will discover some unknown effect that counters the effects we've predicted, essentially gambling that it will fix itself. Direct observations show no such effect, however, as temperatures continue to rise.

Originally posted by IDX2:

h no....not ANOTHER global warming scandal....This one is from New Zealand

New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

more HERE

This one is very interesting, in that it's an outright lie. A lie they've made before, and were soundly slapped down for. But which they now believe is an opportune moment to repeat it, and have to spread through the press.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

Gotta love the denialist industry. Never ones to let facts get in the way of PR.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

That's politics or religion, not science.

No, that is still science. The reputation of a scientific journal is important, and a fair indicator of the quality of a publication. Them allowing the publication of a paper that should not have been published in the opinion of the experts in the field is a [part of the quality control mechnicam which operates in the sicentific community. Mann is not the only one concerned, I believe a number of the review board resigned in protest.
This very much resembles the time creationists managed to get one of their papers published in a scientific journal at the smithsonian, who later had to retract their endorsement.

Originally posted by IDX2:

.....the recent news that now the raw data for 20 years of research was dumped.....How convenient....Just when everyone finds out about how those leaked emails referring to "destroying data rather than letting other scientists see it". This isn't good science at all. It's fraud in the name of science, on a global scale.

From the CRU? Technically true, but misleading. They dumped their own copies of the raw data to save space, after processing had been done. The data is still available to those truly interested in it from the orgiinal sources. EAU doesn't meintain a worldide network of weather stations, afterall. They simply obtain the data from national bodies that do.

Originally posted by Purdi:

Originally posted by IDX2:

oh no....not ANOTHER global warming scandal....This one is from New Zealand

Please link to a verifiable source, not some random wingnut blog.

Purdi - look again at the "data" given in that source: it seems to me that the doctored data (they call it the raw data) still shows clearly a rise in temperature over the last few years, as indicated by the rising trend in average temperature since about 1930. They have taken out the "dotted straight line" line which would have shown this and seem to be relying for their argument on the fact that zero degrees centigrade has remained remarkably constant (!_). A first cursory glance gives the impression of a constant temperature but it is not so if you look at the data presented.

What do you think?

It is not clear to me what the difference in data base between the two results are, only that the article there claims to use "raw data" which is not necessarily the data that should be used. If I had been doing the analysis I would have tried to separate out the "normal" behaviour to see if there was something else affecting temperature and I presume that is what was done by the NIWA.

Originally posted by Redem:

You seem to be basing your entire argument on the gamble that we will discover some unknown effect that counters the effects we've predicted

No.

Originally posted by string:

What do you think?

I think experience shows that insane wingnut blogs have no credibility what so ever because they always lie as much as they can. Thus, a real source is needed, not just a bunch of nonsensical claims in a wingnut blog. See Redem's post, BTW.

What's even more disgusting is that denialists happily align themselves with right-wing religious nutcases (such as Creationists). Why do people who might otherwise be considered rational throw out all independent through and mindlessly push the wingnut agenda?

Originally posted by schapel:

Originally posted by Purdi:

Yeah, and creationists and denialists are the opposite of skeptics since their position is based on a predetermined position which they desperately try to reinforce.

Yes, they're quite gullible when they hear some news that seems to reinforce the conclusion they've already reached. They also assume that the people on the "other side" of the argument are just as gullible and are merely parroting what they've heard.

I repeat this yet again. It's the only way I can make sense out of the events of the past day. Any pro-AGW information is dismissed offhand by the deniers. Any anti-AGW information is gullibly accepted without any evidence by the deniers. It's because they've already made up their minds, so they cannot accept any information that contradicts their conclusion. It's called confirmation bias.

Originally posted by schapel:

I repeat this yet again. It's the only way I can make sense out of the events of the past day. Any pro-AGW information is dismissed offhand by the deniers. Any anti-AGW information is gullibly accepted without any evidence by the deniers. It's because they've already made up their minds, so they cannot accept any information that contradicts their conclusion. It's called confirmation bias.

The same can be said for the other side. The main person advocating AGW, Al Gore , presented a graph looking at the concentration of CO2 and temperature, and assumed from only from that graph, that more CO2 = more warming. However he failed to explain the previous hundreds of thousands of years. Also often reported in areas such as mainstream media, if there is a report of ice melting at the poles there is an assumption that it is unnatural weather and that CO2 is causing it, but the sea ice always melts during Summer and regains during Winter. Here is a graph(2002-2009) showing that although it was warmest in 2007, in 2008 and 2009 the ice has regained. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Also, make of what you will with this set of data of daily mean temperatures in the Arctic over 50 years via DMI, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Originally posted by shoust:

The main person advocating AGW, Al Gore , presented a graph looking at the concentration of CO2 and temperature, and assumed from only from that graph, that more CO2 = more warming.

"The main person"? Gore's hardly a leading climate scientist. He made a single popular movie on the subject, and he's gone about promoting action on the issue to politician and the public.

Originally posted by shoust:

However he failed to explain the previous hundreds of thousands of years.

Why would he? It's not hugely relevant to the recent warming trend.

Originally posted by shoust:

Also often reported in areas such as mainstream media, if there is a report of ice melting at the poles there is an assumption that it is unnatural weather and that CO2 is causing it, but the sea ice always melts during Summer and regains during Winter.

... scientists know full well that it melts in summer and freezes during winter.
The point they're making is that the summer minimum and winter maximum is decreasing over time. Not that it's merely melting in the summers.

Originally posted by shoust:

Here is a graph(2002-2009) showing that although it was warmest in 2007, in 2008 and 2009 the ice has regained.

A two year deviation from a trend does not invalidate the trend.

Originally posted by shoust:

Also often reported in areas such as mainstream media, if there is a report of ice melting at the poles there is an assumption that it is unnatural weather and that CO2 is causing it, but the sea ice always melts during Summer and regains during Winter. Here is a graph(2002-2009) showing that although it was warmest in 2007, in 2008 and 2009 the ice has regained. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

No, we don't assume it's unnatural weather as we observe Arctic sea ice melting. That observation confirms the prediction from climate models that predicted the Earth to warm, with the most warming in the Arctic.

Although there is slightly more area covered by Arctic sea ice in 2009 than in 2007, in fact the volume of Arctic sea ice is still decreasing, because the ice is thinner. Antarctic ice is also melting.

Originally posted by Purdi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Lindzen, who seems to have the strongest argument in AGW skepticism. Knock yourself out.

That is hosted on "Leif and Vera Svalgaard's Home Page". Huh? Has it undergone peer review? Has it been published? Also, what does it actually say?

The guy's an MIT professor. I don't care if it was published in the Podunk Baptist Church bulletin. If you know your chops and are competent to do so, attack the data and conclusions, not the publication site.

Originally posted by Purdi:

Actually, as I just explained, this is yet another case of the deniers misrepresenting the scientists. In this case the journal was taken over by pushers of pseudoscience, which means that the journal no longer had any scientific integrity. Simple as that.

I have no idea why you bring this up now. It has been discussed extensively.

If Lindzen's a "pseudocientist", that must be news to MIT.

Originally posted by Purdi:

Stop changing the subject. Evidence, please.

I think it was Jones that in an email admitted to massaging the data to hide decline. That's the point of not having the raw data, which the two Canadian scientists wanted to see and run through the wringer.

Originally posted by Purdi:

What's even more disgusting is that denialists happily align themselves with right-wing religious nutcases (such as Creationists). Why do people who might otherwise be considered rational throw out all independent through and mindlessly push the wingnut agenda?

Enough with the "Creationists" and "wingnuts" garbage. Red herrings and more cheap vilification.

Originally posted by schapel:

Any pro-AGW information is dismissed offhand by the deniers. Any anti-AGW information is gullibly accepted without any evidence by the deniers.

Not exactly true, and incomplete at that. You forgot the fact that any and all potentially anti-AGW data and conclusions are INSTANTLY attacked and those voicing them are demonized. It's a political or religious reaction, not a reaction of people who are just interested in knowing what the facts are.

I've read through a lot of the CRU emails, and what I see isn't some deep dark conspiracy that a lot on the right are seeing. I see some scientists who sincerely believe they are in the right, but who are terrified of being proven wrong -- and who then seek to demonize and dismiss ANY possible opposition to what they apparently perceive to be iron-clad scientific fact. The AGW hype got too big for its own good. This thread demonstrates a lot of that. Those who express skepticism about the AGW hypothesis are shills, wingnuts, creationists, flat-earthers and maybe pedophiles for good measure. That ain't science, folks, no matter how many "wingnut" red herrings you want to throw in the mix. That's politics.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Enough with the "Creationists" and "wingnuts" garbage. Red herrings and more cheap vilification.

Amen! Preach it!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

any and all potentially anti-AGW data and conclusions are INSTANTLY attacked and those voicing them are demonized.

Wow....the similarities to what happens to ID proponents is scary.

The only difference I have seen in the weather throughout my life is that there is less snow falling in England but I have been told that alot of the New England area gets more and more snowfall every year so it balances out. Every year in England a few countys and cities get extensively flooded and this year it was Cumbria. Icebergs melt and eventually become big again either through an ice age or just colder weather. The day after the twin towers went down all planes in America were grounded and the temperature went down two degrees celsius. Should we ban all planes from flying for a week and see how much the temperature went down would it be really cold or would there be no change at all. Man made global warming yet nature has proved time and time again it is a powerful force to been reckoned with. At a time when we have a global recession I find it odd that the world bank is asking huge amounts of money to combat climate change. Money that no one can afford to give away especially true of poorer countrys, and yet governments aren't worrying about money problems. Is this really global warming or normal weather. Or is the true fact of the matter that we just don't know.

hahaha... :haha:

wow... opera is so liberal wanky

perhaps they fear the warm period of the middle ages because the vikings might return!

Why do you think the major legacy media do not report on the ClimateGate scandal? Is there something to hide? Something to cover up?

I see that you have kept up your charming debating technique, GoJoeGo. Just stay away from the personal attacks this time around. You have already been warned under your previous user account.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The guy's an MIT professor. I don't care if it was published in the Podunk Baptist Church bulletin.

Actually you should care. There is plenty of experience that eminent scientists can be hopeless amateurs in another field, even making gross mistake in their own fields. That an article is peer-reviewed doesn't mean that the article is correct, but it does mean that people with their reputation on the line (the editors and the usually anonymous reviewers) have checked the article that it isn't complete bunk or making silly mistakes or that the claims don't match the data.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Enough with the "Creationists" and "wingnuts" garbage. Red herrings and more cheap vilification.

This time I agree with Purdi in conclusion, if not with how he put it.

It is all a question of how much time you have at your disposal. In any field under intense scrutiny you can ignore everything made by wingnuts, conspiracy theorists, and outright crazy people have to say with no loss of information. Even if by some freakish chance they were right there will also be sane, sober, rational people discovering the same thing, and they will be better able to put the information in a cogent, testable manner, with far less chasing of false leads.

The problem with wingnuts et al, Purdi neglected to mention that there are plenty of them on all sides, not only creationists, is that they start with the conclusion and then look for anything to strengthen that conclusion, weaving arguments around that to make the story convincing, often deceiving others as they likely have deceived themselves.

This isn't that different from how most scientists start out either, they are humans after all, and the more effort they have invested in one line of inquiry the harder it is for them to change course. The difference is that a scientist is trained to halt and reassess if the data don't match the initial assumptions, and if they don't do it and fall for the temptation to massage the data instead, the competition is so hard that other scientists will do that reassessment for them. Deception will not be forgotten or forgiven, even if the scientist is otherwise brilliant, he would be under a pall for the rest of his career.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The guy's an MIT professor. I don't care if it was published in the Podunk Baptist Church bulletin. If you know your chops and are competent to do so, attack the data and conclusions, not the publication site.

And being an MIT professor seals the deal for you? Knowing your chops is how we measure the flow of the debate?

If you do the physics, build the bomb and detonate it, you've demonstrated your bona fides. If you're a climate scientist and your predictions follow, you might win a Nobel prize, but it's nothing compared to the detonated bomb. Your theory can be utterly wrong and the predicted outcome still eventuate.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The guy's an MIT professor. I don't care if it was published in the Podunk Baptist Church bulletin. If you know your chops and are competent to do so, attack the data and conclusions, not the publication site.

And being an MIT professor seals the deal for you? Knowing your chops is how we measure the flow of the debate?

It's not for me that the deal has been sealed. I'm a skeptic at this point, not a "denier". But otherwise, pretty much. It's how AGW became an enthusiasm. A guy from Penn State sealed the deal for quite a few folks -- folks who, like me, didn't have the chops to refute him scientifically. They took his word for it.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

If you do the physics, build the bomb and detonate it, you've demonstrated your bona fides. If you're a climate scientist and your predictions follow, you might win a Nobel prize, but it's nothing compared to the detonated bomb. Your theory can be utterly wrong and the predicted outcome still eventuate.

Quite right, which is why I think debate on the topic is still called for, regardless of what Al Gore says.

Originally posted by jax:

Actually you should care. There is plenty of experience that eminent scientists can be hopeless amateurs in another field, even making gross mistake in their own fields. That an article is peer-reviewed doesn't mean that the article is correct, but it does mean that people with their reputation on the line (the editors and the usually anonymous reviewers) have checked the article that it isn't complete bunk or making silly mistakes or that the claims don't match the data.

If a doctor or biologist discovers the cure for cancer, what will matter is whether the cure works or not, not where the cure is published. Of course, that science would be "settled" though, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

It's not for me that the deal has been sealed. I'm a skeptic at this point, not a "denier". But otherwise, pretty much. It's how AGW became an enthusiasm. A guy from Penn State sealed the deal for quite a few folks -- folks who, like me, didn't have the chops to refute him scientifically. They took his word for it.

Well, that's the fate of all (ALL) grass roots movements. Most folks by a long shot don't have the wherewithal to sift through reams of data and assess conclusions...Jaybro included. That doesn't stop people from declaring affiliations. What I'm convinced of, though, is that those cold waters from melting glaciers will never lap up against my neck. Don't ask why, please.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

It's not for me that the deal has been sealed. I'm a skeptic at this point, not a "denier". But otherwise, pretty much. It's how AGW became an enthusiasm. A guy from Penn State sealed the deal for quite a few folks -- folks who, like me, didn't have the chops to refute him scientifically. They took his word for it.

Well, that's the fate of all (ALL) grass roots movements. Most folks by a long shot don't have the wherewithal to sift through reams of data and assess conclusions...Jaybro included. That doesn't stop people from declaring affiliations. What I'm convinced of, though, is that those cold waters from melting glaciers will never lap up against my neck. Don't ask why, please.

Well, the question is whether my driving a car is melting them, or if my going back to a bicycle or a horse-and-buggy will save the day.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

,,, those cold waters from melting glaciers will never lap up against my neck. Don't ask why, please.

Shan't = is it because you no longer grace Florida?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Well, the question is whether my driving a car is melting them, or if my going back to a bicycle or a horse-and-buggy will save the day.

If you're speaking on speaking on behalf of the human race, that is that part that don't already do that, you are probably right. But you will have to shoot the horse and pull the buggy yourself.

I think the most pertenant question of all is: To fart or burp? Which one cuts down my carbon output the most?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

To fart or burp? Which one cuts down my carbon output the most?

In reality they both ramp it up! Now, I hope you don't think I'm equating you to a bovine, but Cow Farts and Global Warming or The Price of Meat

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The guy's an MIT professor. I don't care if it was published in the Podunk Baptist Church bulletin.

Actually you should care. There is plenty of experience that eminent scientists can be hopeless amateurs in another field, even making gross mistake in their own fields. That an article is peer-reviewed doesn't mean that the article is correct, but it does mean that people with their reputation on the line (the editors and the usually anonymous reviewers) have checked the article that it isn't complete bunk or making silly mistakes or that the claims don't match the data.

I'm not a scientist, obviously, but couldn't peer review also serve to reinforce a "consensus", whether that consensus is mistaken in some way or not?

I'm reminded of Einstein's reported remark on hearing about a book called "100 Authors Against Einstein": "Why a hundred? If I'm wrong, one would be enough."

Michael Crichton could be pretty loopy, but he makes a good point here:

" I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had."

And he continues:

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

“...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

Source.

Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce results with AGW. We get one shot at a prediction, because there is only one running experiment. There are no controls (i.e. Earths where we are not increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide). There is no way to repeat the experiment (except for waiting 1000 years for carbon dioxide levels to go down again). The best way to prove that you have a good hypothesis about climate is to predict what will happen with the climate, then wait to observe whether those predictions come true. That's why I'm glad that scientists who say AGW is not as serious as most climate models show are finally making predictions. Because they have made predictions, it is finally possible to falsify their claims. In a decade or two, at least.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I'm not a scientist, obviously, but couldn't peer review also serve to reinforce a "consensus", whether that consensus is mistaken in some way or not?

I'm reminded of Einstein's reported remark on hearing about a book called "100 Authors Against Einstein": "Why a hundred? If I'm wrong, one would be enough."

Consensus is very common in science. Another common pattern is two rivalling theories, that the proponents stick with until they die. This is one of the reasons why breakthrough science is almost always done by young scientists, they are not so affiliated with their theories as the older scientists are. The young scientists (and scholars for that matter) are also those who re-examine "established truths". Science is thus often generational, the first has rivalling theories, in the second generation one of these theories has won out and we have a consensus, in the third generation that consensus is challenged, and we have the whole thing running again.

I am among those who believe that the majority is always wrong, and consensus is eventually broken. Thus the consensus generation may seem as wasted time, and often it is, but fleshing out the winning theory uncovers weaknesses with it, for the coming Young Turk generation to latch on to. Scientists have the least conservative profession there is, their job is to challenge established verities, but often they have uphold it instead. This innate conservatism slows down things, and as scientists like the rest of the population live and work longer, the time it takes to make new discoveries get longer as well. If we had been <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=3096508">intelligent squids</a> instead of long-living monkeys our squid science would be supreme by now.

But apart from the inevitable delay your quote, "Why a hundred? If I'm wrong, one would be enough.", shows why this isn't a fundamental problem in science. It only takes one clever and persistent individual with good data and good interpretation of the data to bring down the orthodox theory. This field by now has thousands of those scientists, and most of them are young and eager.

That's not all. There are a few scientific fields that attract the crazy people and this is one of them. This field also has great commercial interests and consequences. Some of the scientists may be crazy and/or affiliated as well. You can listen to the crazy people if you like but, as I said, you can ignore them too with no loss of information.

Peer review reinforces orthodoxy, as the reviewers tend to support the established views. But crucially peer review is not about agreeing with the conclusions, but whether the paper fulfils the technical requirements. Reviewers, being humans, are likely to put those papers they disagree with under greater scrutiny, the heterodox will have a harder time getting published. In their favour it is easier to get a paper published that has an unexpected result. It is very hard to publish a paper concluding that findings matched the orthodox theory exactly, if they didn't come to this conclusion in a novel way. Scientists hope to discover something new, otherwise their work is pretty much wasted.

Originally posted by schapel:

Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce results with AGW. We get one shot at a prediction, because there is only one running experiment. There are no controls (i.e. Earths where we are not increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide).

As a monolithic block yes, but the mechanisms may be tested in the lab or in the wild, and we can dig up historical records. Of course running a major weather pattern would be beyond our ability, and putting together all the small pieces introduces new sources of errors, but there are alternatives to wait and see.

Good morning.

Originally posted by string:

Shan't = is it because you no longer grace Florida?

Did I not ask you not to ask!?!?