"The textbook tends to present only the majority viewpoint of the topic, and that's to the detriment of the students."--Joshua Youngkin
Image: Flickr/Johnson Cameraface
The debate on whether evolution should be taught in America's classrooms is as old as the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Recently, a similar effort has come under fire by education leaders and legislators: how to teach global warming.
A flurry of bills that critics say would allow climate change denial to be taught in public schools have been moving through state legislatures throughout the United States, with some success.
The legislation is promoted and often directly supported by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that promotes "intelligent design research" as part of its "Academic Freedom" campaign. The organization aims to prod educators to "teach the controversy" on a number of contentious issues, including climate change.
Kansas H.B. 2306 states that "certain scientific topics, such as climate science, may be controversial. The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
The Kansas bill was defeated Friday, and two similar bills in the Arizona and Colorado legislatures died in February. But H.B. 1674 in Oklahoma is still active, and a similar pair of bills became law in Louisiana and Tennessee last year.
"This has been a busy year for Academic Freedom," said Joshua Youngkin, the Discovery Institute's program officer of public policy and legal affairs, who appeared to testify in support of H.B. 13-1089 in Colorado on Feb. 4.
Youngkin said the Discovery Institute was instrumental in passing the Louisiana and Tennessee bills, and stressed that the legislation would not remove climate science from school curriculums. Rather, he said, it would "give teachers the right to teach both sides of a scientific controversy," providing legal protection for educators who might want to introduce "other sides of the topic" to students.
Critics say the legislation is a step back for climate science in the classroom.
"The bottom line is that these type of bills provide cover -- a Trojan horse, if you will -- for teachers to act as if there is controversy when there isn't, to present both sides in a way that makes them look equal," said Mark McCaffrey of the National Center for Science Education, a California nonprofit that has fought against the bills.
"In our minds, it points to the ongoing challenge of having an informed discussion about climate change," McCaffrey said.
Helping teachers 'step up to the plate'
Oklahoma's H.B. 1674, named the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act" by its author, Rep. Gus Blackwell (R), states that school boards and administrators "shall not prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."
Along with biological evolution, the chemical origins of life and human cloning, global warming is listed as one of the issues in question. The bill would also prevent students from being academically penalized for holding certain beliefs on these subjects.
"Let me be clear, this bill is not to introduce [creationism] or philosophical thought in science, but to stimulate students to explore, evaluate and understand different sides of peer-reviewed, scientific information," said Blackwell, adding that he believes this action will help "rejuvenate" students' interest in science.
Blackwell cited the Oregon Petition (disowned by the National Academy of Sciences in 1998) to support his belief that scientists have not yet agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.
See what we're tweeting about
108 Comments
Add CommentYep, anti-science denial, brought to you by the same TRUE BELIEVERS of "Intelligent Design"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese guys know they don't have to be right, they just have to make the average person doubt that climate change is a really pressing issue. It worked for the tobacco companies a few decades ago and the fossil fuel companies are employing the EXACT SAME strategies for climate change, sometimes even employing the EXACT SAME lobbyists / messaging gurus to spread their misinformation.
They don't care if valuable science classroom time is wasted and they don't care if millions of students are less scientifically informed either. The fossil fuel companies (through Donors Trust - 10x more anonymous money than the Koch Bros. or Exxon combined!) just want to keep their gravy train running for as long as possible, and preventing climate disruption would put the brakes on their future earnings. At least we know that they're not beneath using the wacko "Intelligent Desing" crowd in their massive propaganda campaign.
Next thing they'll want to introduce into science class will be the study and evidence of souls, the exact location of heaven and hell, and why God preferred Abel's animal sacrifices over Cain's harvest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 2011 Yale study based on how people feel about their eduction. If thats science then I have a bridge to sell you. Whats the purpose of listing who donates to whom I can find just as many leftist organizations that donate to groups their interested in. donators does not proof anything as factual or scientific or otherwise, donators are a non-issue but reported here as otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, Elizabeth Harball, intent was to inflame NOT to inform.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one has approved ANY climate change DENIAL to be taught. How could they, when climate change is always happening.
What is disputed is a scientific issue of climate sensitivity to CO2, and tremendous objections to the usage of the word "catastrophic climate change".
Since nothing... catastrophic or even unusual... is happening, why should alarmism be foisted upon our impressionable children without balance.
Elizabeth's constant usage of incorrect language makes this piece merely uninformed, inflammatory nonsense. GK
Fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've already seen the North Polar ice pack nearly disappear, several summers in a row. We've seen catastrophic weather on the rise, as well. It's very easy to find many examples to put the lie to your idiocy.
You may stick your head in the sand all you like, that's your privilege, but your "alarmist" label is a pile of bull excrement, nothing more.
I imagine you're one of the legions who complain that addressing climate change is too expensive, while forgetting that 95% or so of the world's population lives on the coasts. How much do you think it will cost when New York City is 15 feet under water, much less EVERY coastal city?
“…A flurry of bills that critics say would allow climate change denial to be taught in public schools …”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that accurate, or do the bills enable teaching something other than AGW? I post this as someone who is persuaded that AGW is the most likely explanation of the observations. Do the bills allow teaching that climate change is not happening?
Please note that not one word regarding climate change was contained within your bleating comment. Plenty was written about "intelligent design", "tobacco" and the evils of an industry, which single handedly, brought the world into the modern age of plenty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would say, that pretty well sums up your scientific acumen and the full extent of your knowledge.
I daresay the oil executive's children and grandchildren must live in this world... also. Do you really think they don't care about their offspring?!
Is there anything else, you can add, that better exposes your rabidity. GK
Please note that not one word regarding climate change was contained within your bleating comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlenty of ad hominems and inane questions though.
Is there anything else, you can add, that better exposes your rabidity.
Science needs to drop the word Theory. It only creates problems and opens too many doors for these jokers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about "The standard model of biological evolution"? It is much better then "Evolutionary Theory". The word theory is the problem.
"We've already seen the North Polar ice pack nearly disappear"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you call 4.5 million km2 of surviving ice as "almost disappeared" then you now have to show a catastrophic consequence. Where are these dead bodies being stored??
"We've seen catastrophic weather on the rise, as well."
Severe weather has ameliorated with warming of the northern latitudes. This has decreased the delta T, between the polar air mass and the equator. Less delta T results in less delta P, therefore less severe weather in general.
What you may be referring to - is an increase in detected weather, thanks to our now global weather observations (thanks to the introduction of satellite data).
"How much do you think it will cost when New York City is 15 feet under water, much less EVERY coastal city?"
No climatologist nor oceanographer that I have ever heard from, has predicted a 15 foot rise in sea level for New york, within any pertinent time frame. Sea levels have been rising since the great ice stades, began warming. All low lying coastal cities are at risk, if they cannot cope with a few mm of MSL/decade. Hardly any reason for panic.
Again, where are the bodies being kept. GK
The Anti-science troops are on the march - again. It will only end with the numbskulls and zealots are gone either thru education or the ravages of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that us skeptics are called "denialists" -which by the way subliminally refers to nazi denialism towards the jewish holocaust- defines the situation...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe absence of evidence supporting AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and the study of the concept of Spatial Climate (check the works of Landscheidt and Charvatova on Solar cycles, and the work of Svensmark and Shaviv on Cosmic rays, cloud covers, and the origin of glaciations), should be enough to complete the picture to anyone who considers himself a rationalist and a decent person, rather than a hotheaded fanatic ecotaliban.
"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt." Carl Edward Sagan
-Ironically, Sagan himself was one of the first climate pseudoscientists, when, in the Cosmos series, he made a fallacious and demagogical climatic analogy between Venus and Earth, based on the dogma of greenhouse effect. Indeed, he silenced the known fact that Venus, unlike Earth, lacks a magnetic shield against solar wind...-
Sorry, no, but you fail again. I'm afraid I trust the scientists actually observing the North Polar cap far more than *you*, silly. ANd yes, 15 feet is within the range predicted for sea level rise. Do some basic research; even Google will suffice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is an established *fact*; every record we have (from tree rings to Antarctic ice) supports this. The only item under debate is whether humans have caused, or at least contributed, to this rise.
Bloviate more. You're only harming your own cause.
Maybe the "controversy" should be taught. Kids need to learn about how to distinguish science from the self-serving distortions and lies put out by those with lots of money and a habit of only doing what is best for themselves without regard for the welfare of others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to be a believer in Intelligent Design. My reasons for believing that were religious, but functionally, through some "new created to look old" logical leaps, it was a belief system that worked pretty much the same as non-ID.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyhow, one of my greatest frustrations during that period in my life was the massive ignorance is basic terminology by those around me. Obviously, you cannot expect everyone to understand the ins and outs of science jargon (there's a reason scientists make the big bucks). Still, I did tire of pointing out that gravity was only a "theory" too.
As for climate change, I'm not convinced we know enough about how the world works to make intelligent decisions on how to alter it. The weather is an extremely complicated subject that we don't truly grasp, and there is the very real possibility that anything we do will not just be prohibitively expensive, but also do more harm than good.
I don't mean to make you sound so foolish, but sea level rise is expressed via two terms - mm increase and time. ie mm/decade. Without the unit time it becomes non-nonsensical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile global warming was a fact, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic [man generated] global warming) is only a tenuous hypothesis. At the moment it has returned to the status of conjecture, until such time as the climate accelerates enough to catch up to climate models. It will then be a hypothesis (model) again. If cooling begins then the conjecture becomes just more speculation.
I would suggest you re-acquaint yourself with your technical and academic definitions of conjecture, hypothesis, and theory. Cheers GK
So sorry, my above comment should have been addressed to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this14. Bozobub in reply to G. Karst 02:14 PM 3/6/13
my appologies. GK
To the sentence "only two things are certain, death and taxes", I would add "numbskulls and zealots". By the time we have removed all doubt about "dangerous climate change", it will be too late. I don't think we have the right to do that to those not yet born.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt boggles the mind to see so many citizens in an advanced society like America with a hatred for science--with no effort to hide their dislike of scientific methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who want to sell more text books seem delighted with this odd state of affairs.
Might they next publish books on how to argue that one can reliably count the number of angels on the head of a pin?
understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure the Hon. Gus Blackwell would encourage one dime to expose to the same rigor, the "....existing political theories."
Before I even began to read this article, I guessed Kansas and Mississippi and Louisianna would lead the charge of idiocy (as they usually do) relative to climate change. These three states are chock full of very STUPID people who think Charles Darwin is Satan. But I don't think Mississippi is even mentioned at all in the article and Colorado and Arizona ARE mentioned. Perhaps the anti-science and anti-fact disease is now spreading to Colorado and Arizona ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm disturbed at the "religiosity" of the climate change activists. We are continuously going through climate change and there was almost certainly many examples of dramatic climate change before homo sapiens even evolved. Our arrogance as a species leads us to believe that we can somehow divert a massive asteroid hit or that we can coax the Yellowstone Supervolcano from erupting again with more energy than all the nuclear weapons in human hands. Either could event provide global cooling for several years. When looked at in geologic or cosmic timeframes - it will happen again and we'll go the way of the Polar Bear :-(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhil23
I'm disturbed at the "religiosity" of the anti-science denialists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen their is, by any sane definition, a consensus among scientists regarding an issue, the irrational need to insist this is only our "arrogance" as a species is truly baffling.
Not sure why CAGW proponents want certain questions deemed "off-limits". In science nothing is off limits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only anti-science comments on this website are from Alarmists.
"When their is, by any sane definition, a consensus among scientists regarding an issue, the irrational need to insist this is only our "arrogance" as a species is truly baffling."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who believes the science is validated by a "show of hands" is no scientist, and will constantly be baffled by the scientific method. Consensus? I haven't located it in the scientific method NOR in the issue of climate sensitivity. GK
"Anyone who believes the science is validated by a "show of hands" is no scientist".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen try looking up the term peer review.
But that would also result in an end to your absurd denialism.
I question whether schools should "teach" global warming at all. Seems to me all but the most elite schools, with teachers with science or math PhDs should even consider doing so. Further all but the kids with 140 IQs will have no clue about the material and care less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt best, the only students that would have the minimal education necessary to truly understand even a small area of the evidence would be college science major seniors.
In the hands high school, middle school teachers and students, global warming is a political and not a scientific topic. The topic could be used, along with other scientific topics, to discuss scientific evidence, causal inferences, causal models, verification, experimentation, observation, logical inference, cross-discipline teamwork, linkages between biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, botany, mathematics, initial conditions, chaos, prediction, statistics, sampling, etc. More than enough to occupy any teacher and student.
LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, science IS "validated by a show of hands"/consensus; more specifically, the hands of those scientists who have been able to verify the results of any given experiment by doing their own version(s).
In fact, even more specifically, that's what "theory" is, in science: what is consensually thought to be true, according to the evidence at hand. No more, no less.
Go stick your head back in the sand, G. Karst.
Astounding. If I were to be offered a job in any area that had this in its curriculum I would turn the job offer down cold. My children's education is very important. I would also tell the corporation why I was turning down their offer. Small wonder america is slipping into third world status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Discovery Institute exposes itself for what it really is in the discrepancy between its name and its anti science stance on almost any discovery that threatens a literal interpretation of its one book library. There are miracles being discovered every day as we learn how nature really works. I have trouble understanding why the radical religious, of any faith, feel threatened by even the slightest hint of a natural process that won't fit comfortably into their restricted system of beliefs. Science unfettered from the fear of the timid may even help prove God, but he will certainly turn out to be much larger than the ancient gods we are still carrying around. The discovery institute will probably then deny him too if he won't fit into their little box of beliefs. "Darwin's Paw" by Brighton Publishing introduces this idea nicely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course climate is being altered by humanity. Being kind to our planet by being concerned isn't a sin as the anti-discovery institute intimidates. Science has doubt built in, that's how it works. It doesn't need religious denial to keep searching for better explanations. The Discovery institute is at best superfluous.
"Alarmist vs. Denialist"? The polarization triggered by this name-calling is not science. There's a lot of rational, scientific discussion to be written about on the topic of AGW. It isn't just teens who are confused about AGW; a major portion of the educated population finds it impossible to discuss the evidence without being pigeon holed as an extremist. This article is a prime example of writers who sacrifice rational discussion of AGW science in favor of polarizing rhetoric. This kind of "reporting the controversy" is no better than the Discovery Institute's efforts to 'teach the controversy". Both sides avoid discussion of the evidence. SciAm writers and bloggers could help to reduce public confusion by reporting specific studies and evidence for or against AGW, rather than wasting space "reporting the controversy" going on in political circles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease post a reference that indicates that consensus is recognized as a fundamental tenet of the Scientific Method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe abuse and obtuse misuse of science by Alarmists is astounding. Apparently their "Liberal Arts" degrees have endowed them with the ability to re-define the Scientific Method. Below are several definitions of the Scientific Method. As Karst earlier and correctly pointed out, the word consensus does not appear in any of them. If any Alarmists out there find a definition (from something other than the Eco-Fascists Handbook)That shows otherwise, please post it. Until then, Karst is 100% correct.
World English Dictionary
scientific method
— n
a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it
Medical Dictionary
scientific method sci·en·tif·ic method (sī'ən-tĭf'ĭk)
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Cultural Dictionary
scientific method definition
An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.
Even Wikipedia agrees with Karst. Look it up:
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.
All you Alarmists should study the above definitions.. These are the standards of investigation that ALL SKEPTICS find acceptable. The Alarmists? Meh... not so much. They seem to find the Rule Book too... confining ... and wish to re-write it.
Please read the definition of the term "peer review" and how it applies to this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not going to waste my time posting it here since anti-science, logically challenged denialists like yourself just ignore all evidence and the established fact of scientific consensus on this issue.
Exactly. Peer review is simply the <i>consensus</i> reached by scientists who could (or could not) verify the experimental test of your hypothesis, thus confirming or denying status as legitimate "theory". You can dig out definitions all you like, bub, but I'm not wrong on this, Shoshin and Karst, and you're just going to have to suck it up =) .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBozobub and MARCHER,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe you are confusing scientific consensus and peer review. Peer review in the scientfic community refers to a process of scrutinizing an author's research BEFORE it is published in an attempted to uphold the standards of the community and/or the publisher. The author's research findings do NOT need to be VALIDATED by the peer review process.
Scientfic consensus is a very important part of science. However, it should NEVER be used as a scientific argument. It's a fallacious argument that's equivalent to appealing to authority. In addition, scientific consensus is NOT part of the scientific method.
Others seem to be confusing "knowledge" and "consensus."
This excerpt from Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson (2010) says it well:
"Even though scientific knowledge is always provisional and never proven, a strong scientific consensus provides a better basis for relying on the truth of a positive claim than is provided by any other human process for pursuing knowledge. It is of course possible for a strong scientific consensus to be wrong. We are reminded of this possibility on those occasions when new results contradict and eventually overturn a perviously accepted understanding. But while this does happen, and generates much excitement and attention when it does, it occurs infrequently."
Correction: It would have been better to say: Others seem to be confusing TRUTH and consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt amuses me that the ultra religious feel so threatened by nature and our investigations into how it works that they would create a Discovery {denial} Institute. What are they afraid of, or who do they really represent. Science isn't their enemy and an expanded perspective is probably our best bet in avoiding future disasters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExplore and learn
Be of good council
Be a good steward
These are now our mandates for survival
sic probatur
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin wrote, "As Cramer correctly points out, peer review and consensus are really nothing more than tabloids or hearsay for distributing information on a hypothesis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the record, I did not point that out. That statement is ridiculous. The rest of your comments are not even worth a response.
I like Heinlein's version better: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither way, though, it is sadly the same...
True believers can never be swayed by mere logical arguments of the scientific method - be they Creationists or Warmists.
The mere fact that quantum theory, the round earth, the sun centered solar system and uncountably many other theories were, at one time, not the consensus view of the scientific community will not stop some from trying to use consensus as "scientific proof".
Had not heard that version. I like the singing pig better too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe purpose of rebuttal is NOT to convince the person who has made the assertion. It is for the benefit of those who may be inclined to accept the assertions, without sufficient critical thinking. In other words the “innocent bystander”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I do understand and appreciate the sentiment and point of your comment. GK
I do appreciate your point. Have found your posts accurate and well stated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this40. MARCHER in reply to denverjims 10:40 AM 3/7/13 writes..
.....And yet, this has been proven to be the case time and time again, yet you denialist continue to do what you do best, namely to deny this truth and insist every scientific institution of national or international standing on earth is lying......
Every scientific institution on Earth ...You do realise that is a pretty sweeping statement. You mean you know for sure that there are no Chinese or Russian or Danish or Saudi or Polish or Malaysian or whatever institutes that do not agree with your view of current climate science? Every single one in the entire world?
Anyone who cannot understand the inherent problem with disproving a negative has no real business in the discussion to begin with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for the record, I said, "every scientific institution of national or international standing on earth". A statement which is absolutely true.
My apologies, so many psuedonyms, so little time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you would have pointed it out, you would have been correct, though.
I assume this means that you and you alone get to decide which institutions are worthy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow benevolent of you.... and convenient!
Now, have you found a definition of the scientific method yet that includes consensus? I thought not.
"I assume this means that you and you alone get to decide which institutions are worthy?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it means I actually bother to read which institutions are actually viewed as credible by the scientific community. I gather from your post that you do not.
How studious of you, and intelligent.
"Now, have you found a definition of the scientific method yet that includes consensus?"
Thanks for failing (yet again) to disprove either statement I have made; reminds me of just how uninformed, ignorant and foolish you denialists are.
Here's a challenge: Find a version of peer review that does NOT involve consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust one.
I'll wait.
Little hint: You can't. Peer review involves the consensual interpretation of the results of an experiment, repeated as many times as possible. This has nothing to do with "scientific consensus", as you are using it. You can fuss with grammar or be as dismissive as you like, yet you won't be able to dismiss this basic fact. In fact, if there is no consensus among peer reviewers, the experiment is NOT considered to be successful! I'll refer you to "cold fusion" experimental attempts for some illumination on how this can occur.
Another hint: YOU, Karst and Shoshin, were the ones using the the specific term "scientific consensus"; that's not the only definition of the word "consensus", and was not, in fact, how I used the word. Utilize a dictionary, then be still.
Bozo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post makes no sense. You need to learn what science is. Seriously. You've embarrassed yourself.
Sorry, but you're going to have to explain HOW it doesn't make sense, bub.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeed it nice and simple? Here ya go:
Multiple scientists running multiple experiments are involved in peer review, no? Please explain what happens if those scientists do NOT reach consensus on the results of the experiment.
Let me help you out. The hypothesis being tested is considered to be a failure. Conversely, if the peer reviewers DO reach consensus, then you have two more options: Either a consensus for the success of the hypothesis, or the failure of the hypothesis.
No hypothesis can be confirmed experimentally without the consensual approval of its peer reviewers. None.
Try again. You amuse me.
Another hint: "Consensus" does not have to be unanimous. Quite often, only a majority, not all of a given number of peer review attempts confirm or deny a given hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBozobub wrote, "Multiple scientists running multiple experiments are involved in peer review, no?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, not usually. Experiments are expensive (in both time and money).
When scientists speak of "peer review," they are referring to the editorial prepublication process. Yes, scientific "peers" do obviously continue to "review" research indefinitely after publication (maybe centuries), but that is not what is meant when referring to a "peer reviewed" journal article (note: that's why peer reviewed is past tense). You can play with semantics, but that does not make you correct. A good place for clarification is wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Peer_review_evaluation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
If you are going to continue to argue this point, please provide a reference that says otherwise.
Bobobub wrote, "Find a version of peer review that does NOT involve consensus."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust do a page search for consensus at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
There is no requirement to reach a consensus in the peer review process.
60. Bozobub
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou simply don't understand how the term peer review is used in science.
A peer review can (and often is) be done by a single person. Usually peer review is done prior to publication. Generally, the peer is already acquainted with the nature of the work and sometimes even the author. Hence the term peer.
The peer doing the review does not run an identical experiment to confirm results. They do not analyze code, check sources or do anything that might be taken as confirming the work. They are not at all embarrassed if work that they have given a peer review to subsequently turns out to be completely wrong.
When a peer reviewer looks at a study of tree rings he has no way of knowing how reliable the results are because he doesn't really know if the evidence presented is accurate. All he can conclude is that the author seems to understand the relevant attributes of tree rings, seems to understand the importance of methodology, seems to be conversant with mathematical formulae etc. and that it hasn't been done in an identical way thousands of times already. Given that he may recommend it for publication.
It has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with consensus. It doesn't even have anything to with approval. It's merely an indication that on the surface it appears to be a credible piece of science.
Now that we have discussed peer review, it would be incomplete without mentioning, what can go wrong with the peer review process. There are plenty of examples contained within the climategate(s) leak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most obvious comes from a fellow, Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Alas, any system can be subverted, by those who are on a mission to save the world. Some refer to it as the "messiah" complex AKA "noble cause" syndrome. GK
Wow, denialism really is a mental illness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only do you possess no understanding of peer review, you actually justify your denialism with inane conspiracy theories with stolen, unverified (as in possibly forged) emails.
Just keep burying your head in the sand and working to justify your "ostrich complex".
Even Mr Connelly couldn't change the fact over at wikipedia:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents
"In an interview with The Guardian, Phil Jones said "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." He confirmed that the e-mails that had sparked the most controversy appeared to be genuine.[9]"
GK
I think that it's important to teach both sides of climate change and evolution, not to validate in any way the deniers but to help students understand the ways that different people think and how they come to the conclusions that they hold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best way to learn and appreciate the true value and validity of the scientific method is to understand "faith based" reasoning and how it works.
MARCHER, Bozobub,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsensus is a very important part of science. It is NOT a part of the "scientific method" and it is NOT REQUIRED for the "peer review."
Does Karst et al believe consensus is not important? That's what they seem to be saying, but that does not mean their definition of peer review is wrong.
Consensus is what determines how the overall resources in science are prioritized to specific scientific endeavors. Few resources are now being spent on determining if the Earth orbits the Sun. [However, there is some recent research on the relativistic perihelion precession of Earth's orbit.]
AGW has a scientific consensus, but many details have to be worked out. Scientists are unable to precisely predict global temperature anomalies. [A significant reason for this is that scientists are unable to predict El Nino–Southern Oscillations.] Some want to suggest that since models can not precisely predict temperatures, AGW is bogus or insignificant. That is too bad, but research continues.
65. MARCHER in reply to G. Karst 12:01 PM 3/8/13 writes in part....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this......Not only do you possess no understanding of peer review, you actually justify your denialism with inane conspiracy theories with stolen, unverified (as in possibly forged) emails.......
Marcher is discussing the Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.
Marcher seems confused about what stolen means. Had the emails been stolen then Jones and Mann would no longer have them. Of course what actually happened is that emails on their computer were published on the web so that what previously known only to them is now known to the general public. (Much to their shame)
Marcher seems confused about what _unverified (possibly forged)_ means. The entire controversy is centered on the fact that the emails exist. In all the subsequent investigations no one has ever claimed that they did not exist.
Of course, it has already been demonstrated that he doesn't understand what peer review, as used in scientific literature, means.
Red herring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that Marcher's comments are a red herring but he did use his ill informed comment to cast aspersions on another poster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we have cleared up misunderstandings regarding the usage of the terms conjecture, hypothesis, theory, consensus, peer review... then I would say, we all have done some useful work here to-day. It is helpful when everybody is on the same page, regarding these very important terms, whether it for climate change discussions, red herrings or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am wondering, if it wouldn't be worthwhile, to ensure everyone understands the terms:
GW
AGW
CAGW
forcings
feedbacks
If one would like to follow the climate debate, it is vital, that a clear differentiation between these terms, be understood. Google and dictionaries are essential and I encourage everyone to ensure they have the scientific meanings in mind. These subjects are difficult, but worth the effort. GK
Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent link.
Can't we be just a little bit more agnostic here? I believe that the global climate is changing, has always changed over time, and that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has a lot to do with it. Human activities have undeniably caused the CO2 level to rise to its highest level since the last ice age, therefore they have exacerbated the situation. If you accept this as fact, then denial is irrational. Obviously you must repudiate the facts and rustle up some of your own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I find upsetting is that whatever the headline topic is, it degenerates within 3 or 4 posts into puerile ad hominem attacks, reminiscent of the big-endian/small endian dialogues of Gulliver's Travels.
Having said that, I have some misgivings about the Politically Correct attitudes of some pro-global warming converts. Presumably the Climate Science teachers are working to an official syllabus that they shouldn't depart from? If one of them should raise his head above the parapet and express an honest reservation about what he's teaching, he could be subjected to a storm of abuse. I'm not trying to give any comfort to the GW denialists, but, hand on heart, can we good guys not admit that PC can sometimes get out of hand? I'm sure that the Global Warming paradigm is going to change somewhat over time, and any changes will be greeted with triumphant cries by the opposition that we had it all wrong all along, but that's intrinsic to scientific method. By denying the 'thin end of the wedge' to creationists and their ilk, is it possible that we're inhibiting useful dialog from left field? (is that the correct expression - I was brought up British - ?) I have this feeling that we're getting hopelessly polarised.
Having said all that, for a good grasp of historical climate change, may I recommend a book by Robert Silverburg, called 'The Challenge of Climate'. It was written in 1967, and his premise was that the evolution of Homo Sapiens was accelerated by the necessity to adapt to climate change. The fascinating statistics he presented gave a very clear grounding in how climate change graphs are very 'noisy' things; you can't jump to conclusions based on mere decades of climate change numbers. Having read this book years before anyone mentioned Global Warming, I was much more inclined to accept the GW figures when they surfaced. I strongly recommend that you try and find a copy.
BobWalton said, "I'm sure that the Global Warming paradigm is going to change" and "we're getting hopelessly polarised."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately, the global warming meme has been changing.
Karst brought up some acronyms to define: GW, AGW, CAGW. These acronyms show the evolution of the meme.
GW was the meme 5 to 10 years ago when "skeptics" were mostly denying that the globe was warming. The "skeptics" main debate was that the observed temperature data/proxies were wrong. They said Michael Mann's hockey stick was bogus.
AGW then became the meme when many "skeptics" began accepting GW, but then denied it's not being caused by humans. The "skeptics" main debate became CO2 is not driving global warming. They say temperatures have not increased since 1998, but CO2 has increased; therefore GW is not caused by CO2 (humans). They claim the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated.
CAGW is becoming the meme as more "skeptics" accept AGW, but claim their is nothing we can do about it. Humans will easily adapt. Now "skeptics" are even grabbing on to the idea that AGW is good because it will prevent the coming ice age -- especially following yesterday's publication of the Marcott paper (interesting, since that if CO2 would have remained at 240ppm, a recent study claims that the next glaciation would have occured in 1500 years).
Of course, "skeptics" still remain in each group.
Testing - I did a 2000 character post yesterday and it vanished without trace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is indeed unfortunate. I hope you kept a copy, as I would have liked to read it. Try dividing your comment into 4 self standing comments and posting them as additions, as people comment on it. Very few will read 2000 words unless it is VERY gripping. Mind you, I doubt this thread has much more "legs" in it. :) GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi GK, 2000 characters, not words, and it was my Post No 74. I'm a new guy, and I didn't realise how long it would take to arrive. Thanks for the advice. BW
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorthern guy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thank you. Excellent link."
I can only assume you were referring to this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vpTHi7O66pI
Which clearly demonstrated the dangers of consensus science and probably will revolutionary revise a lot of thinking.
It was directly on point and it has disappeared.
Thankyou - for giving me the opportunity to post it again. GK
For those who are dissatisfied with Crammers attempt to misdirect... here they are briefly:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGW - Global Warming = the warming caused by natural variations (Null Hypothesis)
AGW - Anthro(man)pogenic(generated) = the warming caused by man's total presence ie land use changes, farming practices, industrial outputs, and (drumroll) the CO2 IR backscatter effect (crowd roars) more commonly misspoke as the greenhouse effect.
CAGW = GW + AGW = CAGW Conjecture
Not many scientists (with their reputations intact) will go as far as the CAGW conjecture. GK
Sorry omitted CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global warming" does not connote the cause (natural or anthropogenic), just as "global cooling" does not connote the cause. Why Karst attempts to redefine such basic acronyms like GW, AGW, and CAGW is beyond me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "CO2 IR backscatter effect" has nothing to do with global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 absorbing IR, not by CO2 backscattering IR.
(sigh) The phenomenon of a molecule absorbing a photon and it's subsequent re-emission in any random direction is known as "scattering" (that is the technical term). Back scatter are those photons that re-emit back into the direction of the earth (emitter), hence "back". This is standard description of what is known erroneously as the "greenhouse effect". You really need a refresher, luckily there are plenty of descriptions on the internet. Try it out. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScattering of a photon is NOT the absorption and re-emission of a photon. Please provide a reference to a physics book that says otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMolecular vibrations (bending and asymmetric stretching) give rise to infrared active modes (the symmetric mode is Raman active) that are important for the greenhouse effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Wiki (I didn't have to look far):
Raman Scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
"It is also possible to observe molecular vibrations by an inelastic scattering process. In inelastic scattering, an absorbed photon is re-emitted with lower energy. In Raman scattering, the difference in energy between the absorbed and re-emitted photons corresponds to the energy required to excite a molecule to a higher vibrational mode."
"The Raman interaction leads to two possible outcomes:
the material absorbs energy and the emitted photon has a lower energy than the absorbed photon. This outcome is labeled Stokes Raman scattering.
the material loses energy and the emitted photon has a higher energy than the absorbed photon. This outcome is labeled anti-Stokes Raman scattering."
"C. V. Raman discovered the inelastic scattering phenomenon which bears his name in 1928 and for it he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1930. Raman scattering produces scattered photons which differ in frequency from the radiation source which causes it, and the difference is related to vibrational and/or rotational properties of the molecules from which the scattering occurs. It has become more prominent in the years since powerful monochromatic laser sources could provide the scattering power."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/raman.html
Do other greenhouse gasses behave the same way? Yes the quantum mechanics is the same, but one should keep in mind that their vibrational frequencies are different and it is the overlap of the Planck distribution of the earth with the absorption modes of the greenhouse gas that is important. H2O is more important due to sheer abundance and wider adsorption spectrum.
Other than yourself, I have never heard anyone argue that the term "greenhouse effect" isn't a misnomer. GK
For those who may be quantum mechanically challenged (who isn't?) and have a difficult time conceptualizing the different vibrational modes of CO2 (who doesn't?), I found a nice animation, which will help:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Enjoy GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "greenhouse effect" is what it is called and that's unfortunate. You are correct that it is a misnomer (and I have never argued that it wasn't a misnomer). A better name coming to prevalent use would be welcomed. However, calling it the "IR backscatter effect" is wrong because global warming is caused most predominantly by IR photons being absorbed and re-radiated, NOT backscattered.
In Raman scattering the excited state is only a virtual excited state. If you have a background in quantum physics, you should understand the meaning of virtual. And you should understand all of this.
Raman scattering has NOTHING to do with the greenhouse effect. When quoting from wikipedia, you forgot to quote this:
"When photons are scattered from an atom or molecule, most photons are elastically scattered (Rayleigh scattering), such that the scattered photons have the same kinetic energy (frequency and wavelength) as the incident photons. However, a small fraction of the scattered photons (approximately 1 in 10 million) are scattered by an excitation, with the scattered photons having a frequency different from, and usually lower than, that of the incident photons."
Repeat: "1 in 10 million."
I can't wait to have teachers in Tennessee and Louisiana start teaching the Satanist, Pastafarian and Hindu versions of evolution and global warming. After all, these new laws allow exactly that. All those little Bible thumpers are gonna have tons of fun questions for their parents and pastors and it will all be legally protected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you claimed was:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scattering of a photon is NOT the absorption and re-emission of a photon. Please provide a reference to a physics book that says otherwise."
Obviously, my post clearly demonstrated your error, beyond any doubt. Your recognition of the misnomer hardly detracts from lack, in your fundamentals of physics. The graph provided:
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
indicates the scattering spectrum contribution of the various elastic and inelastic scattering of which . Anything else you say must be considered unreliable (polite), in regards to quantum mechanics. Someone else can pick up the torch, find a new tutor. I'm off to read M. Mann and company, new leaked e-mails. GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will give it to you that Raman scattering is absorption and re-emission. However, that is also a misnomer. It is often called a "virtual absorption." Google it.
The sprectrum you provided is an ABORPTION spectrum, not a SCATTERING spectrum. It is labeled explicitly on the sprectrum that the "Symetric [sic] stretch Predicted at 1537 cm-1 is NOT IR active." The symmetric stretch in CO2 would be Raman active. Asymmetric stretching and bending are from IR absorptions.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
1. What does Raman scattering have to do with the greenhouse effect?
My answer: Absolutely nothing.
2. Is there any significant atmospheric scattering of terrestrial radiation (i.e. IR)?
My answer: No, it's negligible.
Please provide your answers rather than only using ad hominems to argue your position.
Let me be more precise about atmospheric scattering in question 2. I meant clear skies (no clouds). Scattering can be both Rayleigh scattering and Raman scattering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can discern that you have been generally taught the rudiments of basic nuclear and sub particle interactions. Many textbooks were written when we thought atoms were like billiard balls on a table. They just rolled around colliding with other balls, ricocheting around causing ionization and most "nuclear effects". This is why so many of our terms are archaic and poorly describe their actions/effects. We have since learned that most scattering events are adsorption/emission events whether talking of photons, neutrons, nuclei, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is your model, of what is going on, that needs to be refined. I spent 10 years of intensive study, training and experience, in order to build a quantum model. IT was obsolete immediately, as our consensus model continuously changes. Worse now as I am retired and no longer active in the field.
When a photon path involves matter, the photon is annihilated, it doesn't exist anymore. At the quantum level, there are only photon annihilation events. The resulting union is described as a virtual particle which seeks equilibrium as another photon emission. There is no reflection or ricocheting (refraction) going on to explain scattering. These terms are archaic, a leftover from the old school concepts of optics (wave theory). The terms are still used, and the math still works (angles of incident etc) They just don't describe the theories correctly at the quantum level. This is true for all of the aged sciences. It is why we have such oddities as backward polarity signs on batteries. We just didn't have electron flow correct when we established the labeling of charge. The people who did so were not stupid or fools.
You model can be corrected by yourself (research and study) or it can be corrected by a tutor, who is qualified and competent. Either way, I can't do it, for you on a blog.
My respect for you is unaffected and I include myself as unreliable, in regards to the latest concepts of matter/ energy interactions, although I am still consulted at times, I usually defer to others.
In answer to your question concerning the various impact of scattering (all subcategories) on the atmosphere... The answer is - EVERYTHING... or perhaps 42. Cheers GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for attempting to behave a bit more civil. However, you are still building a strawman by making assumptions about what I know and don't know and suggesting I be tutored. And since that is not reasonably based on anything I said, it is still an ad hominem. My education in quantum mechanics focused on the Schrodinger equation not billiard balls as you assumed (Advance Physical Chemistry (1965) by Jeff C. Davis Jr. was my undergrad text).
Your entire comment appears to be nothing more than a red herring to avoid answering the questions I asked you. "EVERYTHING... or perhaps 42" is a non-answer.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
1. Is there any significant Rayleigh or Raman scattering of terrestrial IR radiation in the atmosphere?
My answer is no.
What is your answer? Yes or No? ("EVERYTHING" is not an answer.)
2. Is spectrum you referenced from http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html a scattering spectrum (e.g. Raman) or an IR absorption spectrum?
My answer: It is an IR absorption spectrum. Yes, there is a difference between Raman spectroscopy and infrared absorption spectroscopy.
3. Is there is a difference between absorption and scattering?
My answer is Yes. The scattering we are talking about is from a single photon interacting with a single molecule of CO2. This is primarily Rayleigh scattering. Only in 1-in-10 million times is it Raman scattering. In Rayleigh scattering the scattered photon has the same energy (i.e. frequency) as the incident photon. You can call it a different photon but it does not matter because there is no possible way to distinguish between the incident photon and the scattered photon except for the direction of its movement. Can you provide the delay times resulting from Rayleigh scattering? With absorption, the energy of the incident photon is taken up by the CO2 molecule. It can then be transformed to other forms of energy. In Rayleigh scattering energy is never transformed to another form of energy such as heat -- it only results in a scattered photon with the exact same energy.
From what you have said your answers appear to be the exact opposite of my answers. Here are your answers:
1. Yes (see Karst comment #72)
2. The spectrum from widener.edu is a scattering spectrum (see Karst comment #81)
3. No (see Karst comment #75 and others comments)
However, maybe you misspoke so I will allow you to explicitly correct your answers.
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI forgot to ask.
Could you provide a summary of the "quantum model" that you "spent 10 years of intensive study, training and experience, in order to build [it]?"
If you don't wish to summarize it, you could just reference a paper by you or the particle physicist that led that research.
What was the "consensus model" that "continuously changes" that rendered it "obsolete?" I'm sure there must be a research paper on that model since it was the "consensus model." Could you provide a reference?
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for confirming your answer that you believe "CO2 IR backscatter" is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
And thank you for confirming that your "10 yr quantum model" is an "internal model/paradigm construct, that must be constructed, to claim any understanding." In other words, it's all in your head; and as you said it was "obsolete immediately, as our consensus model continuously changes."
You are quite welcome. You accidentally neglected to include the directive of my quoted words:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" is an "internal model/paradigm construct, that must be constructed, to claim any understanding, which you have failed to accurately construct."
How did you manage to replace my comment with your own, is all I would like to know? Great trick! GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quoted exactly what you said. You are the one that said your "quantum model" was obsolete. Why would I want to "construct" an obsolete model?
I did not replace your comment. Your comment was deleted by the SciAm moderator most likely due to ad hominems. I wish SciAm would not have deleted it. It was more evidence showing your lack of knowledge. I will warn others about you in the future and reference your comments in this thread about your belief that "CO2 IR backscatter" is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
"CO2 IR backscatter" is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly man, CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect. H2O IR backscatter is the major mechanism behind the atmospheric greenhouse effect. That is the consensus. Again, I must ask "Can you not get ANYTHING right?" GK
My first encounter with "teach the controversy" vis-a-vis climate change was around 2001 or 2002 when a student in my class, in which I taught about climate change, told me his mom, a State Senator, was going to introduce legislation to require a balanced view of global warming be taught in universities. She did in fact introduce the bill. It was defeated. She is no longer in the State Senate. (She got a better job later on.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the topic being discussed here is climate-science education, I don't think that it would be out of line to put up a link to a free software/data package that allows students to "roll their own" global temperature results by selecting temperature stations on a clickable Google Map display.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe package can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/NASA-HANSEN
The package takes homogenized *and* raw temperature data from the selected stations, runs it through a very straightforward gridding/averaging program and plots up the results against the official NASA/GISS temperature station results.
Students can watch the global-warming signal emerge from the data as they click on random stations around the globe (as each new station is clicked, its data is added to the global-average results).
What students will find is that as they click on stations, their global temperature results will converge quickly to NASA's (noisier, but with the same temperature trend) for all time periods where at least 30 or so of their selected stations have data.
Students can also screen stations and plot "batch mode" results by station class (rural vs urban, low vs high altitude, latitude bands, etc.)
They will quickly find that replicating the NASA global-warming trend is amazingly easy, and it doesn't matter whether you use rural, urban, raw or adjusted data. For all cases, you will see a global temperature trend very consistent with the NASA results.
Unfortunately, package is a pretty big download (about 1GB), but it contains all the software and data needed to get started immediately. It boots up and runs in its own isolated "virtual machine sandbox" -- it cannot harm your system.
It will run on any newer Mac or Windows PC/Laptop (2GB or more memory highly recommended). You can get it up and running with just a few mouse-clicks by following the "quickstart" instructions in the documentation (see the link on the right side of the download page).
Once students familiarize themselves with the package, they will find it quite easy to debunk the popular "skeptic" attacks on the NASA/HANSEN global-temperature results (i.e. warming is due to adjustments, warming is due to UHI, "dropped stations" skew the results, etc.)
Once again, the link is: http://tinyurl.com/NASA-HANSEN
And once again, apologies for the download size -- the "virtual machine" approach was the quickest/cheapest way for me to bundle up the software and data in an easy-to-use package that will run on all popular PC/Laptop platforms (Windows, OSX, Linux).
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you believe that is the consensus, then you should be able to find a reference for that. Please provide a reference.
I am only attempting to clarify your beliefs that you attempted to communicate in comments #72, #75, #77. I am simply just repeating what you said. If you refuse to answer questions, this process will take longer.
I believe both CO2 and H2O IR backscatter have NOTHING to do with the greenhouse effect. Find a reference and prove me wrong, rather than only playing word games and using ad hominems.
Good Grief, in my previous posts I showed the possible vibration modes of CO2 and which modes are IR active. All involved adsorption/absorption scattering events. There are no additional modes. The links are above. Asking for multiple additional links is merely asking me to continue tutoring you. Do your own research, consult a physicist, construct a better model, then look inward for more answers. Don't go away mad just go bother someone else with your demands. Were done! Again! GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, in your previous link you believed the spectrum was a scattering spectrum (see your comment #81):
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Wrong. It is a IR absorption spectrum. I told you this in comment #82.
I had to explain to you that the symmetric stretch in CO2 that is from Raman scattering is not IR active and is therefore missing from the spectrum (see comment #82). It says it right on the spectrum, if you read it. Asymmetric stretching and bending are from IR absorptions are shown in the spectrum.
You also seem not to understand that adsorption and absorption are two different processes. You made this error before in your comment #84, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that is was a typo. Referring to "adsorption/absorption scattering events" is definitely not a typo, but represents a pure lack of knowledge.
IR backscatter has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. You will NEVER be able to provide a reference to prove otherwise, because no such reference exists.
No both adsorption and absorption are photon scatter events ( as I have demonstrated above). ANY event that changes the path of a photon(some debate as to randomness or determinable directions), is referred to as scattering. I have provided the references, seek help elsewhere. Basic seems too advanced for you. Provide some other energy transfer mechanism, and we can have further discussion. You seem to think, as long as you post the last word that somehow translates, into a scientific argumentative win. It does not. Again, consult a physicist, for additional insight. You cannot divert the subject nor the fact that you have been consistently wrong throughout the conversation. I am not your research assistant. Bye GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNowhere in the wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering
does it say
"CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect"
or
"both adsorption and absorption are photon scatter events"
or anything suggesting those erroneous statements.
"Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, I have no problem with the usage of the NON-specific term of back-radiation (common term), however, physicist prefer to use terms more specific, as in back-scatter. There are many types of radiation, so back-radiation does not inform a physicist. Use of either term is fine.
Now if you want to make a case that out going photons are NOT deviating (scattered) from their outward path, then you have just eliminated the GHE. It is only the term GHE, that is objectionable, as it poorly describes the phenomenon. GK
An example of how CAGW attained momentum, enjoy (2 parts):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart one:
Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist: see above.
Climatologist: Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist: there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist: there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist: That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist: The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist: AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist: Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist: Uhm… no.
Physicist: rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist: Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.
Physicist: see above.
Climatologist: Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist: see above.
Climatologist: Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!
Physicist: The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.
Climatologist: Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist: how much grant money?
Climatologist: Billions. Want some?
Physicist: Uhm…
Climatologist: BILLIONS
Climatologist: Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
Karst said, "physicist prefer to use terms more specific, as in back-scatter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, physicists do NOT call it backscatter. Why do you refuse to provide a reference?
Scattering of outgoing IR photons is negligible.
Read page 311 of
FUNDAMENTALS OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
By Craig F. Bohren, Eugene Clothiaux
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C
While it is true that "nuclear" theory differentiates between adsorption events and scattering, this refers to specific nuclear matter to photon conversions. As demonstrated in the adsorption of a thermalized neutron into a nucleus (hence "nuclear" effect). The atom undergoes transmutation and balances the energies by a emission of high energy photons. These photons and many other adsorption events are NOT scattered photons. They are original photons which are on their original trajectory. Any deviation in this original path will thereafter be called scattering. But photon-nucleus-photon (adsorption-photon re-emission) events, it is quite correct to use the term scattering (as in Rayleigh\Ramon scattering). No problems from nuclear physicists, there. Keep researching - clue - it was why the particle is called virtual. Btw: your link mainly deals with the chemical properties of adsorption, not the nuclear. It is one of your difficulties in crossing disciplines. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to specify the energy of the photon. Do believe infrared photons are created by the nuclear reactions you are describing? I don't.
Chemical properties? It deals with the bending and stretching of chemical bonds. Do you believe IR photons should deal with nuclear properties? I don't.
Why do you keep referring to adsorption? -- It's absorption. I already told you this.
Can you discuss or refute anything that was written on page 311:
FUNDAMENTALS OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
By Craig F. Bohren, Eugene Clothiaux
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C
Directing the conversation to nuclear physics is simply a red herring and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
I respect that you commissioned eight nuclear power facilities 40 years ago, but that has nothing to do with climatology. It also doesn't make you a nuclear physicist.
You have provided a poor wiki reference and a reference to a page in a book. I have corrected all your inaccuracies and provided citations backing up the fundamentals. You can look up scattering, all you want the definition, will remain unchanged. Pick your reference. I must start charging you consulting time, or my bookkeeper will be down on me. Off to read more M.Mann trashing of scientific ethics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBtw: all of the nuclear reactors, I commissioned, are still running (proof of theory) - How about yours??? GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you claiming that Craig Bohren and Eugene Clothiaux are wrong?
You are the one that said,
"CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect"
and
"both adsorption and absorption are photon scatter events."
When a person makes an erroneous statement, the onus is on that person to prove that statement correct.
You are unable to find a reference, so instead you play games. Don't you get tired of using the same fallacious arguments over and over? You could end it by referencing just one other scientist in the world that you agrees with your erroneous statements. The rub is that no such scientist exists.
It is interesting when I google "CO2 IR backscatter" or something similar (e.g. "CO2 infrared backscatter"), the only hit I get is you saying it here.
Prove me wrong. Your continuous use of ad hominems prove nothing.
I have covered all possible atmospheric photon/matter interactions, including atmospheric uranium tramp (dust). Absorption (molecular/atom electron shell) and adsorption effects (molecular/atom centered) - except Compton scattering, where a photon containing the remaining energy being emitted in a different direction from the original, so that the overall momentum of the system is conserved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
http://wanda.fiu.edu/teaching/courses/Modern_lab_manual/Compton_Scattering.html
Please name the specific atmospheric IR absorption event, that you claim does not cause the IR photon to scatter. I will then be able to show you how it does cause photons to deviate (scatter) photons. If it does not scatter photons then it cannot re-direct earthward, which is THE requirement for the GHE. It doesn't mater what causes the deviation from original path it is still scatter.
Your inability to understand the scatter (verb) effect caused by absorption is astounding, even when you read the exact mechanism, in every source. Just because an interaction involves absorption does not detract from the fact that it scatters photons. I don't think you even understand the meaning of "deviation from path" means.
You will find the consensus in the agreed definitions, of dictionaries and textbook descriptions similar to that quoted above. There is no peer reviewed book of physics consensus word usage, only agreed definitions. If you were part of my team, you would be benched and all your previous theoretical/practical work, ordered reviewed. Let me take a wild guess... you are presently unemployed and you don't understand why??
I know of no peer reviewed paper which attempts to accurately attribute and quantify the GHE to it's specific scattering process. The best you will find are generic statements like:
"According to Schmidt, et al. (2010), and summarized by Chris Colose, the total greenhouse effect between various radiatively active substances in the atmosphere is:
Water vapor: 50%
Clouds: 25%
Carbon dioxide: 19%
Others: 7%
Under clear sky conditions:
Water vapor: 67%
Carbon dioxide: 24%
Others: 9% "
Nowhere do they make attributions as % Compton, % Rayleigh/Ramon, etc. For instance, the Ramon IR scatter may occur with much less frequency than regular Rayleigh scattering, but it is inelastic, where energy in, does NOT equal, energy out. The energy difference is translated into molecular velocity (heat). This makes it the ONLY IR absorption event, that causes direct atmospheric heating. So the weighting is much different than merely the event frequency.
Now you point to a book cover and want me to write a book review (unbelievable hubris). GIVE ME THE NAME OF YOUR ABSORPTION EVENT (responsible for GHE) AND I WILL DEMONSTRATE IT'S PHOTON SCATTER EFFECT. You are a peach. GK
I assumed when I provided the link to the book by Bohren and Clothiaux, you could figure out how to click on the book to open it; and then scroll to the correct page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFUNDAMENTALS OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
By Craig F. Bohren, Eugene Clothiaux
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C
Here's a direct link to page 311.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false
The authors state: "Scattering of terrestrial radiation by clear air is usually negligible. For example, scattering at 10 µm is about 10^4 times smaller than at 1 µm,..." [Terrestrial IR radiation is from 4 to 25 µm. Maximum emission is at 9.7 µm.]
They have separate chapters on absorption and scattering. They obviously believe absorption and scattering are two different processes.
If you want to continue to believe that "CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect," that's fine with me. Go ahead and keep communicating that to others. Keep believing that Bohren and Clothiaux are wrong and you are right.
Each one of your comments contained at least one ad hominem. That was the only argument you had. You were unable to find a single reference that "CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect." There is no point in continuing this. This dialogue is over.
I forgot to mention this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst said, "Nowhere do they make attributions as % Compton, % Rayleigh/Ramon, etc."
Bingo. They don't include those attributions because Compton, Rayleigh, and Ramon scattering have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
First, I apologize for returning your jibes in kind. It WAS unprofessional of me, but quite normal for blog give and take. It WAS rather vicious - please forgive me. Good thing this is an old thread, which no one else is following.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, separating absorption/adsorption photons from the bulk of scattering processes is quite proper. The result is photon scattering, but an asterisk must be used, because of the transitory state. While the creation of a virtual particle maintains the continuity of the photon, some are not comfortable with this solution (continuity of original photon), and the resulting photon emission.
Most recent papers prefer the use of back-radiation to avoid these contentious issues, and I think we just demonstrated why? You see, things are never really settled. Can ANY photon-matter interaction result in a continuous original photon? The arguments have been going on for 150 years, long before the internet (which is why these old papers are not easily found by search engines). They reside in dusty paper libraries.
Radiative wave theory is much more eloquent when describing these interactions, with it's beautiful, musical sounding descriptions of resonance, reflection, refractory, interference patterns, etc. It too develops theoretical conundrums, and contradictions.
You have neglected to name (nomenclature) the absorption interaction, that you BELIEVE is the main IR contribution to the GHE. "Absorption" does not identify which absorption event, you are referring to. No matter, I will not be drawn, any further down this rabbit hole.
Btw: I need to correct "This makes it the ONLY IR absorption event, that causes direct atmospheric heating." to "This makes it the ONLY IR absorption event, that causes direct EFFICIENT atmospheric heating." After all. If a molecule of CO2 cannot easily heat the surrounding N + O, we can discount it's importance (weighing). Cheers. GK