Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
Here’s one of the confusing issues regarding global warming: After all the data we’ve collected so far how can we still have such wide variety in outlooks for our future?
Well Mark Maslin, director of the Environment Institute at the University College London and his colleague John Adams proposed one theory.
They believe that human opinion can be explained by how we respond to risk and uncertainty.
In reference to global warming beliefs, they combine four possible myths of nature with four myths of human nature. Myth is their term—you can also think of them as belief or opinion.
Here they are:
1) Nature is benign: Earth is predictable and robust, able to withstand or bounce back from any damage. This view corresponds with what they call individualists, entrepreneurial types who don’t necessarily believe in control or intervention from others. Maslin uses the example of self-made oil barons.
2) Nature is ephemeral: Earth is fragile and it is in danger of collapse. And this view is held by egalitarians, people who have strong democratic group loyalties but do not respect externally imposed rules. Radical environmentalists might fall into this category.
3) Nature is tolerant: Earth can handle some changes, but major excesses will send it reeling. This is a view held by hierarchists, people who know their place, and adhere to strong social structures. Scientists or soldiers might be examples.
4) Nature is capricious: Earth’s reactions are so unpredictable that we cannot predict nor accurately plan our future. This is the view of fatalists, those who feel they have little control over their lives.
From this framework, Maslin says we can tell which person is likely to believe which view of nature. And this is one way to look at why there are so many responses to the threat of global warming, despite us all having access to the same information.
—Christie Nicholson
Please note: these theories were explained with graphics in a book by Mark Maslin called, Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction.
See what we're tweeting about
94 Comments
Add CommentBeautiful point of view ... thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason why there are so many different global warming beliefs is because of (1) The right-wing organizations like Exxon and Heritage that fund a small group of scientists to speak out against the theory, (2) the right-wing media that gives these people attention, and (3) the idiots who cannot see or understand this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a scientific point of view, there is consensus. The less scientific your audience is, the more there is doubt. This is documented here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/13/753136/-A-Fundamental-Pathology-of-Global-Warming-Denialists
and also here:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
The facts are there, the science is determined, yet the media and the stupidity of the common people keep on promoting myths that it is still open to debate.
"stupidity of the common people"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Sanchez sounds like a nose-in-the-air elitist jerk!
I may be an elitist jerk, but I don't have my nose in the air. I will explain this stuff to anybody who is willing to listen. But those who shout ignorance without listening to authorities on the subject deserve a solid kick in the pants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTragically, there is an even better explanation of why there are such a wide variety in outlooks for our future: whether you are reality based or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimplistically, there are two kinds of people: those who are reality based, and those who aren't. Practically, being non-reality based isn't all that bad - you get to believe what makes you feel good. For instance, look at the "birthers," who believe that Obama isn't a US citizen, and therefore isn't the legitimate President of the United States. This is not reality based, since there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, but since the birthers don't want to believe Obama is their leader, it feels better to cop the attitude that he is illegitimate. In this blatant instance of non-reality based thinking, something like 20% of self-identified Republicans maintain this belief (and something like 70% of Southern Whites).
Now, global warming is much more subtle, so how can you possible expect those who are prone to non-reality based thinking to accept such an inconvenient truth?
There are two reasons I can see to not want to believe in global warming. The first is the belief that skepticism is healthy. After all. everybody knew that the celestial spheres model is right, and the observations matched it pretty well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second is that global warming believers tend to attack at a personal level. DrSanchez is a low level example of this, but this also happens at the actual research levels, where articles purporting to refute global warming will have their author attacked instead of their content. This gives the impression that global warming supporters are like religious fanatics.
totally agree with you drsanchez - we went past the time of tolerating ignorance long long ago and i am sick and tired of there being a 'debate' when we have everything to lose if the science proves correct (which we know it will). Mean while - for a moment could we stop being so anthropocentric and consider the impact we are having on other species? what right do we have to wipe out so many creatures in such dreadful ways just to run 2+ plasma TVs, wear (hideous) fur trim coats, eat meat at every meal and replace still functioning gadgets we never needed in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisREALITY CHECK PEOPLE!!!
The article adds another interesting dimension to the motivation for choice of turf-spot. The comments provide more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd this - it will take a great effort over a long period of time to respond successfully to this pollution problem.
A sizable and vociferous collection of contrarians size up the shape and cost of a solution - and reject the problem.
Global warming may be an issue, but the cause is my issue. Are we so arrogant as to believe that in our short span of time on earth we know every temperature variation and warming trend that should or shouldn't be? There are credible and intelligent scientists who disagree with the what is stated as the cause. Are CO2 levels rising due to warming or are they causing it? No one can do a double blind experiment in an identical earth with lower levels of CO2 to "prove" anything. Global warming will always be a theory as evolution will always be (all though the evidence is much stronger for this). The same group that trusts the masses to be correct are the same ones who trust pharmaceutical companies to be honest and care, governments to be transparent and work for the good of the people and not their re-election and think the horrors of religion (sodomy, abuse, crusades, jihad) happen to people who deserve it. I have rarely been wrong going with the theory that the more the masses believe that something has to be fact, the less likely facts are present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Sanchez,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you put so much faith in scientist who can't even predict what the weather will be like next week? LOL
In my experience, the people who say that global warming is "just a theory that hasn't been proven" are the same kinds of people who say that "evolution is just a theory that hasn't been proven". Whereas man caused, global warming does have a few (percentage wise) credible scientists who have competing theories, the preponderance of evidence STRONGLY suggests that we'd better get our @$$es in gear and take strong action to correct our previous actions. Evolution on the other hand, has NO credible competing theory. It also has an absolutely HUGE amount of evidence which has piled up to the point that biology makes absolutely no sense without evolution. dobermanmacleod, I think this verifies your hypothesis of reality based minds and non-reality based minds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi'm afraid the 'predicting weather' comment is not very helpfully, though i understand what you are attempting to get at ... i suggest if you wish to understand why scientists can not predict the weather you should try to come to grips with the theory of complex systems and then chaos theory - predicting weather accurately beyond several days is unlikely any time soon, and further more irrelevant to all things relating to climate change. i apologise for sounding dismissive, as text in this kind of forum always does. :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two kinds of people: those who classify people into two kinds, and those who do not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat snotty comment is intended as a joke, but it hints at a problem in public discourse these days. The change that's going on in media is part of the problem. Newspapers and TV broadcast news are in steep decline and cable news is already well past its prime; all are desperately into shouting matches for attention. Online news is immature, lacking any journalistic standard; we can aggregate daily feeds that suit us and easily get our comfy fill of opinions that we agree with.
That allows politicians to feed rants to the faithful, who respond in kind. The comments we read in forums like this one are dominated by ad hominem comments. We simplify the world; if there's a problem, there must be bad guys who should be put in their place: Exxon! Liberals! Big government! A conspiracy among scientists! Rush Limbaugh! Ignorant masses!
Let's lower our voices, OK? And thoughtfully read things that we disagree with, we might learn something.
AKIRRABOO: Loved your statement "...we have everything to lose if the science proves correct (which we know it will)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"DR." SANCHEZ: I agree with you to an extent, but attitudes like yours aren't going to help anything. Calling the "common people" stupid is hardly likely to win anyone over to your point of view. Of course, if you're just trolling, you're doing an excellent job!
ok, just to further alienate those who dislike categorization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are those who like to plan ahead, and there are those who prefer to deal with the consequences when they happen.
I beleive most people fall into the latter category. Sadly this will be our undoing, as things like global warming have 10 to 50 year lags between action and result.
Probably because they can predict the weather next week inordinately more accurately than the non-scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are sick, and want treatment, who do you go to? I bet your doctor... and not the salesperson at the local vitamin store.
That does not mean we take our doctor at face value. We get second opinions, and use our noggin. If 9 of 10 doctors told you had disease x and the cure was y, I bet you would opt to take the cure, instead of saying "hey, these 9 doctors must be wrong, cause one doctor disagrees - I gues I will hope for the best and let the disease run its course".
Look, Dr Sachez has forgotten that when we dismiss the messenger, the message never gets through.
I just find it interesting that in the history of the earth, this planet has gone from snow-ball earth, being completely frozen, to extremly high levels of CO2 during Jurrasic period, having no ice all at the poles, ie... huge swings in climate, without man being in the picture. The fact is climate change is the norm and species extinction is the norm. Man may be influencing these normal fluctuations, but is certainly not the causes of them. All modeling has errors in them, and multiple models help to show trends, but I would be very surprised if the models showed no expected changes, because this is a dynamic planet and it has ALWAYS changed. The climate never ever stays put. Just recently the earth has gone through many cycles of ice ages, the last being 10 to 12 thousand years ago - the planet is warming from this cold period, and will certainly go back into another one. The scientific opinions I have read said that the warming we are experiencing is most likely going to delay this coming cold period, not turn earth into the next Venus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just find it interesting that in the history of the earth, this planet has gone from snow-ball earth, being completely frozen, to extremly high levels of CO2 during Jurrasic period, having no ice all at the poles, ie... huge swings in climate, without man being in the picture. The fact is climate change is the norm and species extinction is the norm. Man may be influencing these normal fluctuations, but is certainly not the causes of them. All modeling has errors in them, and multiple models help to show trends, but I would be very surprised if the models showed no expected changes, because this is a dynamic planet and it has ALWAYS changed. The climate never ever stays put. Just recently the earth has gone through many cycles of ice ages, the last being 10 to 12 thousand years ago - the planet is warming from this cold period, and will certainly go back into another one. The scientific opinions I have read said that the warming we are experiencing is most likely going to delay this coming cold period, not turn earth into the next Venus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless if the theory is correct or not, it's certainly hard to believe anything that comes from the mouth of someone like Mark Maslin from this article who's entire career depends on ensuring that some sort of environmental trauma exists. I relate him to someone like Al Sharpton; without racism, it's hard to make money giving speeches about it so you constantly have to remind people that racism is alive and well in order to continue making money. Racism is not going away whether it exists in the masses or not largely because of people like Al and the same can be said of "Global Warming" and its promoters like Mark regardless if it exists or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo offer my opinion though, it's pretty tough to believe in the "scientists" who first promote the end of the earth with an ice age in the 70's and then promote the end of the earth with global warming in the 90's and early 2000's. And now, inconveniently, as Al Gore states, climate still isn't cooperating so the new death to the earth is "Climate Change".
I may just be a common citizen but could it be that the self-proclaimed elite's like Mr. Sanchez are causing the dissention when they themselves can not decide from year to year??? All I can say is I wish I was as smart as them to come up with a theory that creates Billions and Billions of dollars of wealth for the people the promote it.
CommonPerson: That LOL at the end of your comment turned it into an unintelligent remark. Dr. Sanchez is very accurate in his article, but an article is worthless unless it is followed up with 'action'. It is a fact that we humans, with our great consumption of carbon fuels, is causing global uncertainty and global health problems, and it will continue until we take steps to stop it. We already have the technology to quickly stop global warming in its tracks and it will not take 50 to 100 years. All the auto manufacturers can start mass producing electric cars, exchange them for the carbon fueled cars and we can build geothermal power plants, shut down the carbon powered plants...that will totally eliminate carbon pollutents. This quick change will only cost as much as we allow it to cost. In the early part of the last century, we built dams and roads across the country and it did not cost trillions of dollars. If we stop allowing greed to charge more for a product than it's worth, we can achieve this in ten years or less, but we will not achieve anything untill we start working together again to solve our self created problems. We cannot expect the changed that will take place in 2012 to correct all the problems we caused; if we want to live here, we will have to work together to bring about the changes we so desperatly need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Sanchez,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you explain "consensus" and it's role in science? For instance, is it like a democratic vote? If so, is it like a vote for cloture in The US Senate where 60% of the sitting members must vote "yes" or is it just a vote where a majority wins? I'm interested in the role of consensus in science and not the politics of science. For instance, exactly what numerical or formulaic form does consensus take? Can you give an example (or examples) of how consensus is accounted for in any particular experiment that tests a scientific theory or in a particular theory itself? For instance, how did Einstein use consensus in his Special Theory of Relativity to overcome the consensus of Newtonian mechanics? Or was there no consensus with respect to Newtonian mechanics? Maybe Albert squared consensus in order to overcome consensus? Energy = mass times consensus-squared! Albert wins, Issac looses! Enlighten us. Just how does a scientist account for consensus?
How does consensus decide the physical aspects of our universe? Consensus must be very powerful indeed. But not as powerful as the "vote" that can decide a particular scientific theory one way or the other. Votes change. Does that mean our physical universe changes with the votes? It would seem that creating a metric for consensus must be quite a problem for science. I need to check the scientific method out again. I am sure consensus must be accounted for somewhere.
with all due respect, warnings about excessive carbon emissions due to human behaviour (in particular over population on one hand, and over consumption by westerners on the other) have been around for a very very long time - well over 100 hundred years. and still no one has taken heed. the names used to describe the result of said increased emissions have changed and this causes problems in how the public at large perceive the issue. the issue has not changed, the concept that describes the outcome has. this should not have any impact on the quality of the science that says the changes occurring are too rapid and out of kilter to be by 'nature' alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi understand a lot of people think this is fine - the earth will bounce back with or without us. i, however, cannot escape the image of every child that starves from a drought that goes on longer then it would otherwise, a mother's child swept away in an unseasonal tsunami, a polar bear that drowns for lack of solid ice, an ancient long reef of coral bleached in overly warm water ... how can you dismiss our responsibility to all things on the planet when we are all human and all have a role to play? no, we are not all equally 'guilty' but we all share a moral obligation to 'risk' doing something significant 'just in case'. why not? are you really that important that you owe nothing to nature and those around you?
essentially it comes down to: do nothing and risk it all, including that which we have no right to destroy (but have trifled with for centuries just the same); or, do something significant and reassess everything we have taken for granted 'just in case' - if most of the greatest scientist on earth today are right we have a chance to save ourselves and the majority of the ecosystems left today, and if they are wrong we have only sacrificed some luxuries we never needed whilst giving impetus to new technologies and more efficient forms of energy consumption.
So, Dr. Sanchez, consensus is the holy grail of science? I thought is was confirming a hypolthesis with actual evidence. In fact, some of the great scientific advances were the result of unpopular or discredited theories. So, the "consensus" you sight I view as a contrary indicator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one is postulating an effect on climate which will take place over decades, how can it be concluded that such an effect will in fact take place prior to the passing of an appropriate amount of time? Any attempt to use historical data back more than about a century is unreliable at best. And is the temperature variation over the past century more than background natural variation?
Anyway, thanks for your valuable contribution to the discourse. You do have something in common with those "common people" you have referenced. They blame the oil companies for everything also.
Dr Sanchez is taking quite a backlash. I like to look at the big picture. Humans have done really well over the last 10,000 years...we should try to preserve the conditions that have allowed that. Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been doing things substantially different and it is influencing the natural world that has been so good to us. Global warming (now called climate change due to a right-wing campaign to push a less frightening label) and its' effects are well documented (literally 1000's of studies). However it is just one of a number of ways that we are screwing things up (soil degradation, overuse of water resulting in dropping water tables, toxic messes from mining and uranium enrichment, air pollution that is adversely affecting health, overlogging and so on). Now, I don't know if any or all of these will result in catastrophes or just changes but I do know this...these are symptoms of a society that just overuses...and that, I'm afraid, is where the rubber hits the road. Money, economic growth, who pays and who benefits...any movement to correct environmental problems will run up against these influences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease offer real examples, or else you are just doing the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistcp - The change from "global warming" to "climate change" had nothing to do with a "right-wing campaign to push a less frigtening label". Just the opposite. Those pushing anthropogenic gobal warming have changed the name due to concerns that the data behind the "warming" in global warming has shown disconcerting trends of late. We are having a fairly "cold" summer where I am. Better to call it "climate change" than "global warming" in such a climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Sanchez,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain how Convection, a more efficient means of heat transfer than radiation cannot or would not handle the extra radiative forcing that CO2 is said to contribute estimated at ~2 Watts/m^2. Note a cubic meter of water at 18 C contains about 1.2 TRILLION Joules and needs ~4.2 Million joules to raise the temp 1 C.
Extra note, as temp increases so does the rate of convection and radiation. That is what you might refer to as a NEGATIVE feedback that automatically occurs with 'trapped' heat.
Extra extra note, heating and cooling can be described as the WORK, Force/distance/time. Take a moment to figure out how much work is done by radiation at temps we see on the Earth and how much work is done by convection at the same temps.
Please go on about why AGW Alarmists need not supply the methods that led them to their conclusions but rather only need a "peer reviewed" summary of the gist of the idea.
I am no PhD, but armed with a College Level understanding of physics and some fairly common critical thinking methods, I will be glad to debate you over the merits of the 'proof' AGW Advocates claim to have.
It may be interesting to see how common stupidity is among PhD's these days.
Want to put your money where your mouth is?
Steve
what about me? i think nature is charming and fun, but a little bit pugnacious when she gets drunk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ET3D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's plenty of evidence for the causes of global warming past and present. I'm sad to inform majority of people such as you tend to plug their ears, hum, and scream "Lalalala.. I can't hear you."
Milankovitch cycles which are due to earth's tilt and orbital (around sun) variations. A change in tilt of earth could and most likely has before melted the northern polar region releasing unknown massive amounts of methane which happens to be stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. More tilt = stronger seasons.. no tilt = no seasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3M4ou3kvw - Methane Lake
Orbital variations are easily verifiable due to Pluto and Neptune switching order. Which at it's closest point to the sun it somehow *sarcasm* warms up which has been scrutinized by deniers with cherry picked data.
@rseyedoc
Yes, climate change is normal when it occurs over thousands of years. Yet, due to the industrial revolution we have accelerated it beyond normal nature induced situations. Currently we are in a low of sun activity which can be verified by NASA due to protection measures of satellite equipment capable of being damaged from solar flares. In Australia they just had a record heat wave this year while being in a weak solar output. Your excuse might be.. it's cause of that man made arson wildfire. To be precise the heatwave happened before the arson.
@Drzakowski
ROFL!! Exxon spent more money lobbying than ALL Green Tech combined for the Climate Bill. They want the fuel supply to run out ASAP so they can charge more for the same product while making unprofitable small oil fields profitable. Exxon is even trying to get $25 Billion from the government for the Alaskan Natural gas pipeline when they just made $50+ Billion last year in profits.
As to the Ice Age in the 70's.. it was a Times Article using a non peer reviewed scientific study. Which majority of scientist at that time we're predicting warming. As to Al Gore renaming Global Warming to Climate change.. that was the Bush administration which has been debunked plenty of times.
Then you claim a conspiracy to make billions with green tech.. What about the trillions being made off oil and price manipulation of the markets? To purchase oil you only need 10% upfront and you technically own it to resell for profit. It's a tax by hedge funds that you pay so Mr. Money Bags never works during his lifetime. Not to mention the developing nations who are hit the hardest due to increased fuel prices. Which of course increases electricity price due to they need fuel to mine.
<b>and its' effects are well documented (literally 1000's of studies).</b>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, billions and billions of dollars on the EFFECTS, much of it wasted on studies such as why the Pika is moving to higher altitudes during an interglacial when the species prospered during the last Glacial period.
1000's of studies on the effects, but not ONE study on the CAUSE linking CO2 to any warming ever observed in Earth's atmosphere. Correlations, yes, but they break down when studied closely. In order to truly study the CAUSE of the warming, we need to look at all the contributions to heating and cooling.
<b>(soil degradation, overuse of water resulting in dropping water tables, toxic messes from mining and uranium enrichment, air pollution that is adversely affecting health, overlogging and so on)</b>
Land use, real polution, population, and an host of other issues are real and can be mitigated. The Greenhouse Effect is misunderstood and exagerated without explaining the Effects of Convection (Cooling) in tandem. A thermodynamic System can be described as the Sums of heating and cooling and AGW Advocates are ignoring convection when calculating the GHE which they use to describe the while Earth's system.
It is time to be sensible and use the Scientific Method completely. We skeptics only want to see the methods employed to arrive at what appear to be made up or exagerated conclusions. While there are people who claim to be skeptical, we citizens of the USA are guaranteed individual liberties and I do not wish to participate in programs or measures that use guesswork to demand more taxes from me when I have not even consented to the taxes being taken from me now.
This idea that Dr Sanchez reiterated about 'scientific authority' needs to be quelled. Ever notice AGW Advocates, especially 'experts', always refuse debate?
Steve
They have left out category 5! ...All of the above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis view is held by people who transcend such narrow aspects and have a true gestalt of Nature.
Anthropological Global Warming is a hypothesis NOT yet a theory. It must be tested and debated until elevated to theory status. Hypothesis are a dime a dozen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe End is Far -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad you are taking on the scientific community all by yourself. I am sure that the sum of scientists, researchers and such, who have devoted large effort and time, are just hacks, and have never even heard of, or applied, thermodynamics or the scientific method to their work on climate change. I mean, really, it is not as if heating and cooling have any bearing on thermodynamics.
You try to come off so very knowledgable, and in the end come off arrogant. It is probably not a good idea, in a scientific journal/blog, to start with the assumption that scientists are stupid. Remember Dr Sanchez, and the beating he took? He came off elitist and dismissive. You followed suit very nicely.
Drzakowski
You stated "it's certainly hard to believe anything that comes from the mouth of someone like Mark Maslin from this article who's entire career depends on ensuring that some sort of environmental trauma exists"
However, you have it backwards. People have jobs like this BECAUSE there is verifiable trauma being done to this planet.
Bottom line for me - I do think, based on what I have read and understood, that Climate Change/Global Warming is happening, and in large part due to people. I also think there is a feedback loop that will save us. No, not some thermodynics scientists have conveniently forgotten to account for. When life is less sustainable, there will be fewer people. Fewer people means less damage... ergo we will end up getting to a balance. I hope you and your childen enjoy the new balance we are tending toward.
@RDH
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific Concensus = Peer reviewed studies which data is looked at all angles to either agree or debunk with evidence to back their theory. Then the other situation is suggest a new theory which goes through the battle of peer reviewed studies. Without the peer reviewed process it's essentially hear-say opinions on aspects of science. That's how science works.. normally it's not like a governmental system where if X person plays ball Y person shovels cash into X's pocket. With the exception of Exxon and such to fund hogwash studies using straw man arguments to debate.
@Drzakowski
Here's video relating to the supposed Ice Age theory of the 70's. Also, sorry it was not the Times magazine.. it was Newsweek. Which they cherry picked the scientific study which was relating to questioning if pollution blocks the sun leading to a cooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
@The End if Far
You have a grasp of some physics.. Yet, neglect factors such as polar regions have seasons where it's sun up for months and then sun down for months. In which per square meter / per hour the sun projects 3,400 btu of heat energy which equates to 3,587,189.9 joules. So per 24 hrs of light their is a warming of 20 degrees celsius without factoring other variables. Side note.. Ice water doesn't necessarily contain energy. It's more like a lack of energy in molecules which relates to terrible conductors of heat. A great example is building an igloo to stay warm due to it being a terrible conductor since the molecules are not moving enough to transfer the energy of heat.
I think they missed a group -- the scientists, who work from observation rather than making assumptions based on belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdmittedly this is a tiny group compared to the overall population.
But they do have reality on their side, you know.
Broecker: "angry beast"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/322/5900/376?ck=nck
Peter Ward: Medea
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8855.html
Beliefs have many forms. You don't have to believe in God to be a Christian. You can believe that creation exists without it being formed by an intelligent creator or a God. You can be a good Christian by being kind to your neighbour, without having to go to church or practise ancient rituals or accepting archaic dogmas lost in the mists of time. But you can't believe in Climate Change Denial that offers no supporting evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisildenizen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all, just the ones that fail to provide their methods or use models based on conjecture to draw firm conclusions. The AGW community is rife with uncorroborated correlations and suppositions that are passed off as sound science.
Way too much focus on the Effect than the Cause.
I would have no issue if policy wasn't being drafted that negatively affected my taxes and the disgust at Scientific Authority's (IPCC, EPA, etc) dismissal of providing methods and using peer review in lieu of repeatable tests for corraboration.
"I mean, really, it is not as if heating and cooling have any bearing on thermodynamics." Is that a joke?
I am not trying to come off as anything, it is my understanding, that I did much research and study to arrive at, that leads me to seriously question not only the methods employed, or lack there of, that AGW Advocates use, but with the massive amounts of funding, now I also question the motives.
I don't believe scientists are stupid, but I do believe some think a title or position grants them some Authority which is complete hogwash in science. Read up on Piltdown Man to see how science can be politicized and susceptible to fraud.
I was simply responding to the esteemed Dr's offer to explain something TO me. I am truly looking forward to debate similar to the Universe debates in the 1900's where the Inflationists dueled the Statics on the size and age of the universe. To date, AGW Advocates have refused debate claiming superiority and settled science when it is obvious they have none even refusing to share methods. Why hide methods if they are repeatable?
You say you beleive AGW is real based on your understanding. Have you considered the following; What role does Convection play in cooling the planet's surface? Is Convection, in fact, a much more effcient means of energy transfer within Earth's atmosphere (troposphere) than Radiation? Does entropy dictate that energy transfers take the most efficient route or "path of least resistance"?
Not only do AGW Advocates not share the methods used to conclude the fantastic predictions, their models do not follow what we already know about the universe. While Radiation is the primary means for heating the planet, Convection is the primary means of cooling it up to the Tropopause.
You cannot describe the Greenhouse Effect without calculating the Convection Effect associated with it.
Steve
Well, well, well...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can ALL 'pretend' anything we want...
I pretend this lottery ticket in my pocket will give me riches, (at '170 Mil. to 1' odds!), while simultanously pretending transmitting email resumes will get this American college graduate - citizen, (me), re-employed...which is known to be totally against what America's, (and the world's), 'fearless leaders' demand...
What utter nonsense, from/for, a college graduate!
'Impending Global Weather Instability', (a more approprite label then 'global warming', IMHO), IS happening, as it has always happened, and will produce, sooner, rather then later, an Earth that may be totally incompatible with one of it's minor lifeforms, self -labelled: 'Homo.Sapiens'.
If/when that occurs, all the 'Deity/Deities-fearing' will claim their religio-cultural predictions complete, (no matter how much variability exists between predictions & reality; how scientific!). The rest of us will be left to make whatever we can of survival prospects, ('Mad Max beyond thunderdome'/
whatever).
As I have blogged elsewhere: When all the martyrs have crashed planes into buildings, (killing almost 400 of my {former} co-workers, one Sept. morning, almost ten years ago), who will be left to 'worship' Allah?
Who will worship Jesus or Yahova, if humanity is reduced to 'insect -survival' due to outgrowing/over-populating our
Biological - niche?
I have a vasectomy, without offspring. (...bad former Catholic!!).
I am months away from my 1st. marriege at the ripe old age of...'50-something'.
I didn't replace my Toyota pickup, stolen, in the Bronx, (amid much laughter by NYPD's eptiomy crime fighters, the 49 Pct.), almost 16 years ago. Life goes on...
I thank my, 'beliefs', (such as they are), for the deep honor of being, however briefly, conscious & aware of all that is around me...
I fluctuate every couple hours from one group to the next. I find it healthy to explore all options firsthand. Only then can I identify the motivations behind each.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you are not old enough to remember the 1970s: It was cold and the following consensus was being screamed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew York Times, May 21, 1975
"A major cooling of the planet is widely considered inevitable because it is well established that the Northern Hemisphere's climate has been getting cooler since about 1950".
Science News, March 1, 1975
"Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age".
Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976
"Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation".
Global Ecology, 1971
"The continued rapid cooling of the Earth means that a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery"
International Wildlife, July 1975."
"The world's climatologists are agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age"
Science Digest, February 1973
"As a result of ominous signs that the Earth's climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines."
TIME cover story- Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
"atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Newsweek cover story, April 28th 1975
"The Cooling World: Armadillos are fleeing south from Nebraska, and heat-seeking snails are retreating from Central European forests."
Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974
"The North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool. Glaciers have begun to advance and growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter."
The young only know weather.
I believe that those people who believe that they are harming the planet by using fossil fuels should either stop using them or pay extra for wind/solar power, no gas and no oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no consensus on AGW. Anyone who says that does not understand science because in science there is no consensus.
However this has created such an uproar, with lots of uneducated people speaking out and voting, that I think it is easier to do the above.
In my case, we are living through the worst summer I have ever seen and I grew up in the cold spell of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Before this summer, we had the 2nd worse summer I have ever seen. I have lived here for 27 years. In 2005 I bought a fan because it was hot. I do not have A/C. I used the fan 3 times in 2005 then used it once in 2006. I have not used it since. That is a good testament to the temperatures here. Therefore I cannot believe in global warming but I will certainly encourage those who do to go off the grid.
I believe that those people who believe that they are harming the planet by using fossil fuels should either stop using them or pay extra for wind/solar power, no gas and no oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no consensus on AGW. Anyone who says that does not understand science because in science there is no consensus.
However this has created such an uproar, with lots of uneducated people speaking out and voting, that I think it is easier to do the above.
In my case, we are living through the worst summer I have ever seen and I grew up in the cold spell of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Before this summer, we had the 2nd worse summer I have ever seen. I have lived here for 27 years. In 2005 I bought a fan because it was hot. I do not have A/C. I used the fan 3 times in 2005 then used it once in 2006. I have not used it since. That is a good testament to the temperatures here. Therefore I cannot believe in global warming but I will certainly encourage those who do to go off the grid.
This article ignores the huge amount of psychological studies which show that people believe (or at least profess to believe) whatever best serves their own self interest. A classic example was a few years ago when the CEO's of the cigarette manufacturers were in front of the US congress testifying that they did not believe that smoking cigarettes cause health problems. Meanwhile, their lawyers were arguing in court that the manufacturers were not liable for the problems caused by smoking because the risks had been known for so long that anyone who smoked was doing so knowing the risks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we could track down the people arguing here against global warming, I am confidant that virtually all of them would be found to be in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
DrSanchez,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you, sir, have a doctorate in anything other than "divinity" I'll be stunned. YOUR LANGUAGE ("idiot") alone disqualifies you from being an educated person.
You are expressing the RELIGIOUS opinion of one of the "true believers" - NOT scientific fact, at all. How dare you pretend to be a "doctor" and how dare you throw epithets at those who might honestly disagree with your "church-of-man-the-only-cause-of-global-warming"?
OMGosh,...........!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny.
Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist. A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information. A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not. Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind. Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.
@G. Karst
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found one of the articles you "claim" to quote which is misrepresenting your source.
Science News, March 1, 1975
"Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age". - G Kharst
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
"If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be con- siderably more drastic. According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age, a real possibility. Again, this transition would involve only a small change of global temperature-2 or 3 degrees." Which is miss representing
After a couple more fact checking your data.. I realized all your data is from a George Will article.. plagiarism or are you really George Will? You have posted this exact cut and paste onto so many sites its not even funny. Troll much?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html
In the above article George Will stated that: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
Asked to respond, the website of Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois states that: "We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979."
If he's fabricating his data.. It would be stupidity to not be skeptical of anything coming from his articles or mouth.
"In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming." - Sourced from Wikipedia
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf - Wiki's source
This video debunks thoroughly all the nonsense of claimed cooling from the minority of the 1970's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
And a "religionist" is one who blindly accepts "scientific" evidence that is not scientific in any way. Global warming is happening. It has happened between every ice-age period. (Y'know... when there WERE NO HUMANS to cause it.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe earth itself produces far, far more "greenhouse" gases than mankind could ever dream of doing. We are in a part of the warming phase of the natural cycle. It seems to have begun about 17,000 years ago. It has continued, with various natural ups and downs, for all that time. NOTHING that mankind can do will have much effect on it. It will continue, in its own natural way; exactly as it has done many times before.
Do not give yourself an importance either as a "cause' of it or as a potential "relief" of it. It doesn't even know you're there!
The reason there is a diverse set of view points is because, whether some would like you to think otherwise or not, the verdict is still out! Whether you are a global warming believer or not, both sides are putting faith in something. There is NO experimentally verified set of data on the matter. There is correlated data from the PAST, which is then used to fit parameters that are inserted into models, but it borders on a prediction that almost has no falsibility test. Maybe the predictions are right or maybe they're completely wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there is some agreement among climatologists, but scientific consensus is not necessarily the hallmark of fact.
People from both sides, often fail to understand the complexity of the models involved. They also have a hard time understanding how a basic mathematical model works in the first place. Its ONLY as good as the terms inserted. By that, the scientists must guess as to what terms are and are not relevant. This completely discounts, for example, CO2 sinks that may crop up in the future that scientists completely overlooked. Or, alternatively, positive feedback mechanisms that they overlooked that will make their prediction a vast vast under estimate.
So, its not about republican versus holy green environmentalists. Its about education on BOTH sides and manipulation of data and media time on BOTH sides. Anyone who is not agnostic on the issue, or at least willing to accept the possibility that the others side might be right is completely uneducated on the matter.
And comments stating things like "we can't even predict the weather" drip of ignorance. Weather is not climate and the two models are completely apples to oranges. You may not trust scientists for the weather, but I'm willing to bet you trust them to develop the semiconductor technology in the computer you are typing on.
I am sick of both sides simply coming up with completely irrelevant anecdotal examples of why "they're right." I am sick of everyone knowing the answer without even knowing the actual question. And I am entirely sick of the popular attachment to everything "green," even though most things that are "green" take far more energy to produce than will ever be saved during their use. If the green side doesn't think there is manipulation and money being made on their side of the equation then there is no reason to even have a discussion with you.
Both sides are guilty and it seems that both sides have completely stopped worrying about what really matters on the issue, which is the "truth.
Bobdobs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce does absolutely contain thermal energy, unless you have cooled it to absolute zero. If so, please make reservations to win your Nobel Prize. The fact that its colder than you means nothing in terms of whether it contains thermal energy.
Further, its a good heat insulator not because of its temperature. There are many materials that conduct heat even more readily at lower temperature. In fact, as you cool ice to lower temperatures it actually conducts heat more readily. Heat is conducted via phonons, and those phonons generally propagate more readily as the atomic sites of the material vibrate less. So you actually have it exactly backwards.
I am amused that most of the people here denying the global warming theory are suggesting that we cannot trust the scientists. It seems that these people have little understanding how scientific research works. They think that science always comes down to a theory that can take only 20 minutes to read and thoroughly understand, and a simple equation like y = x^2. I'm very sorry, folks, but it is generally not as simple as how you learned it in high school. If you want to make an intelligent opinion on the subject, then go do a PhD on it, get a bunch of publications on the subject, and then add your name to the very short list of credible dissenters. If you can't do that, then shut up and listen to the majority scientific opinion -- the people who have spent their whole lives studying the subject and have come to a conclusion based upon the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for those who point to the supposed global cooling theory of the 1970s, this is just another example of how the media mis-represented the majority scientific viewpoint. This is documented in many places, but a succinct summary is here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=44626
Have a wonderful day.
Yours truly,
your elitist jerk commentator
*Dr* Sanchez, PhD
TTLG
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if you would be so kind as to contact ANYONE whom you know in the oil business. It seems (according to you) that somebody owes me a LOT of money!!
As I am now retired and living on a less than generous pension, I could certainly use some cash. Especially now that certain "idiot" politicians are proposing a 7% "carbon" surtax on the oil that heats my wee shack.
""I am sick of everyone knowing the answer without even knowing the actual question.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you just became my new role model. Thanks for a bit of sanity in this storm of "informed opinion", boastfulness of "credentials", and "certainty that we'll be proved right".........
Why are there so many omissions on this script? Was it carefully chekced before being posed or Christie Nicholson did not follow the scrip?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting that the AGW "science" is not proven. Not even close. None of the IPCC predictions have come true, and they've had some time to correct themsleves yet they continue to be way off. If you believe the IPCC we already would all be under water. Maybe , just possibly, is the IPCC over-weighting CO2 effects in their predictions.Could it just possibly be politically motivated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet the sheeple believe these supposed IPCC scientists who are wrong time and time again versus those that are skeptical.
What also amazes me is the sheeple attitude that whatever government backs is always better than those evil corporations. Corporations cannot force you to do anything.
Government can. Wake up and observe and make up your own mind.
Dr Sanchez you don't have to be a genius like yourself to notice that the IPCC is way off. CO2 concentrations have increased yet temperatures have not risen and catastrophe has not ensued. Yet the IPCC continues to predict catastrophe if CO2 just goes up a little more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is a tiny fraction of our atmosphere and man's contribution is a small fraction of that. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.
However, controlling and and taxing CO2 does transfer a lot of power and wealth to our beloved government. You think there might be some shady stuff going on there? Just possibly? A little bit of motivation there to over weight CO2 effects some. No way right right. The government would never lie to us. Get real!
I have used my air conditioner about 5 days this summer and my pool about 3 days because it's nbeen so damn cold.
Forgive us skeptics if we remain a tad suspicious of AGW.
sorry, but i have been very congenial on his forum but have noticed that you (sez me) have not. i am wondering (since you have attacked the credentials of others) what your credentials are - what is your interest in this topic and do you have children, since i have noticed that people with children have a vested interest in their future and this is amplified by their education/intelligence (ie. their capacity to actually comprehend this debate in any cogent way).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis your attack based purely on disbelief in the theory of climate change as it presently stands (if so you are a poorly read participant in this forum and should gain access to some decent journals but possibly you do not have access to these through university subscriptions), do you hold tight to your luxuries and current energy consumption because you can not see past your self enough to consider the experience/existence of another organism (well, that speaks for itself as anthropocentric and essentially selfish), or do you just like to participate in these forums as 'devils advocate' to be a pain in the ass?
excuse me naysayers but i, like others, have grown tired of this 'debate' - much like the "does smoking cause lung cancer" debate. the difference is that you smoking because you want to be ignorant does not directly affect my health. but this debate over the environment does affect me, my children, the animals i care about and the ecosystems i depend on. grow up. if you have doubt in the science then get enough of an education to be able to read a REAL scientific journal and maybe then you will come to understand that consensus means the greatest scientists in the world, who are not on the pay roll of major energy companies, are in complete agreement. stop acting like babies. and why should this be such a painful venture? personally i see nothing greater then a regular physical engagement with nature. screw concrete and asphalt. go hiking, breath fresh air, and know what you are trying to save/rescue.
reply to: ildenizen at 03:50 PM on 08/03/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven though I strongly believe that any logical person (not strongly tied to the global warming industry) can conclude there are far too many variables to pinpoint the earth's ever-changing climate directly on mankind, I will concede that my argument that "global warming scientists' entire livelihood depends on ensuring the belief that there is climate stress" is not easily provable and is therefore entirely based on a strong, deductive hunch....pheww (long sentence there).
So, let's say it another way. It is a fact that their jobs entirely depend on the existence of climate stress, no ifs, ands or buts. Everyone, please draw your own conclusion's based on this simple fact and consider...What would you do put in the same scenario as these scientists where their families depend on them to put food on the table? Enough said.
Drzakowski,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm... seems we are at an impasse :-)
Let ME try this another way.
It is as if I said that all disease was manufactured by doctors - because of course, they are only in business when we are all sick. Yes, we have some doctors that over-prescribe tests and drugs... but that is far cry from saying that they will always find something wrong with you in order to stay in business.
From the education point of view...
You are considering spending a small fortune and 8+ years of your life to study something at some university.
You notice in the 60s and 70s that there are few if any jobs in anything related to climate change... so of course that is the direction you take for your education.. I mean, your parents made fun of your aspirations to become an astronaut or an actor. Surely they can't ridicule you for education that is geared to a non-existing job market.
Yes... today there is a job market for this. But it was pioneered by people who had no interest in money, because there was none to be had then. It was pioneered by people with real concerns... enough that they would forfeit high paying jobs in industry - in order to try to gather evidence and find out if we are affecting our planet.
Are there some free-loaders on the Climate Change bandwagon? Name some place that doesn't have any.
Most posts here imply we just don't know enough yet to make the climate change call... I suspect then that the answer is to get the information, evaluate it, so we can know. That means more scientists and science working on climate change.
bobdobbs404
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad you are easily amused Bob. Nonetheless, I found your argument to my "conspiracy" claim misguided to say the least. For arguments sake, let's assume there is, in fact, a big oil conspiracy. Your argument is that because the big oil conspiracy is larger in dollar amount, the global warming conspiracy is inconsequential. What can I say to that......So I choose my battle's differently than you do. Good luck fighting the big oil conspiracy Bob. With arguments like yours, I'm sure they'll be bowing at your feet in no time.
To your next point about the single Time's article that caused the entire "Ice Age" scare in the 70's. It's such an ignorant comment, I question why I'm even replying but I am so....I challenge you only to review the few articles posted by G. Karst at 7:27PM on 8/3 and then you tell me again how it was just the Time's article that led to the Ice Age scare.
I just wonder which scientific side you are going to quote 30 years from now to prove your current theory at that time?
"Anthropological Global Warming is a hypothesis NOT yet a theory. It must be tested and debated until elevated to theory status. Hypothesis are a dime a dozen."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm... you see, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, if one person burns one log, we have added heat to the planet. Ok, so only 1 trillionth of one degree (add as many zeros as needed to make this a true statement).
So you see... AGW is not a theory. It is fact. Incontrovertible.
The question is not if we can affect our climate... but whether we as humans can have any significant affect over our planet's climate that is not buried in the noise of all the natural causes. I use the words "Significant" carefully, as this is one of those words that has no meaning in a strictly scientific sense.
A real hypothesis might be --> Buring X coal for Y years will emit Z Megatons of CO2. This additional CO2 in the atmosphere represents P parts per million. (Site Studys) indicate that global temperatures will deviate from their normal variations by no less than L and no more than M degrees C based on the CO2 concentrations"
Ok... so I am no scientist... but I know you really have to quantify thing very accurately (more than I did above), before you can verify with any certainty that a hypothesis is true.
ildenizen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate to think that you truly believe there was no funding for the first pitiful soul that started studying this. It's clear you have an education but to not understand the basics of all scientific study is disappointing.
Sure, there wasn't MUCH money to be made at first, like all studies just starting out. Just a few extremist groups here and there to fund this study or that study. But, it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the investors and scientists GOAL to generate interest in the topic so more money will become available via larger groups or tax payer funded grants. The following certainly does not hold true for all scientists but.....if you can scare just the right people, you will trigger the right politicians into action and you will have enough funding to put your grandchildrens children through college. It is an undeniable fact that this happens ALL the time. What were some of the scares of the 80's and 90's that we dumped millions of dollars into that turned out to be nothing? The topic just faded away after awhile and the dumb masses forgot and moved on to the next scare. Global Warming, on the other hand, has really hit the bullseye. Congratulations to the scientists that hit the lottery on that one.
Lastly and unfortunately, I know you are right when you say we will be using more and more of our tax dollars to hire more and more scientists to fight this never ending battle.
bobdobbs404:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't know what you are blathering about. My excerpts are properly enclosed in quotation marks, and are properly credited to the publisher. If G. Will likes my list he is welcome to it, as is anyone else, who wants it. It has grown over time as commenter(s) add to it from time to time. It is not a complete list, as it would be too long. Anyone with additions o this list, please post.
I post regularly at 4 or 5 sites, Accuweather, RC, WUWT, SciAM, are the main ones. You can engage me at any of these fine sites.
I post the global cooling excerpts, whenever some ideologue posts revisionist history, trying to claim consensus means something scientific. Panic mongering is not new to the planet. I like to post data and leave the commentary to others concerning politics and ideology.
As far as ice is concerned, the NSIDC report for June month end was:
JUNE (month end averages) NSIDC
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 13.2 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 12.3 million sq km
Total = 25.5 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 14.4 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 11.5 million sq km
Total = 25.9 million sq km
July ice figures shows a deficit.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
As you can see the total sea ice is nominal and stable (red line, if you don't know how to read graph). You are applying ideology to science. Not a good mix. You live in a glass house... Stop throwing stones!
@bobdobbs404
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientific Consensus = Peer reviewed studies which data is looked at all angles to either agree or debunk with evidence to back their theory."
Wrong. Sorry, but that is bunk. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Consensus is moot if you have verifiable facts/evidence to back a claim i.e. Science. Consensus is a collection of like opinions, highly valuable in politics, and highly destructive in Science.
I work for a Scientific US Gov't Org and I can tell you flatly that ~70% of funding is used to DRIVE political agendas and to SECURE more funding. This is not reserved at my agency, this is common across all US Gov't agencies and the State University systems. Playing ball means securing funding which means kissing the right party's butt at the right time.
Consensus is an excuse to continue or start a course of action when empirical data lacks.
"So per 24 hrs of light their is a warming of 20 degrees Celsius without factoring other variables."
Variables like the cooling, and cooling rate, that takes place over the same 24 hours? Variables like the temperature of the air directly above the surface which helps influence the rate of cooling? Heat transfer rates are heavily dependent on the difference in temperature between two adjacent regions (i.e. Surface and air above it). Variables like emissivity, albedo, convection currents, precipitation, differences in specific heat, etc? Those kind of variables? You must include all transfers of energy when describing a thermo system, not just one and expect it to apply it to to the others.
Do you think it is okay to ignore a major cooling method when describing the major heating method for the same region in space? As one method (radiation) adds energy, a combination of convection and radiation are transferring energy away from the surface towards space, with some conduction down into the ground. Recall that energy, on average, always moves towards a region of lower energy.
Your comments on Ice Water are nonsensical. I'm not sure that I can accurately guess your meaning.
Thanks,
Steve
@bobdobbs404
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientific Consensus = Peer reviewed studies which data is looked at all angles to either agree or debunk with evidence to back their theory."
Wrong. Sorry, but that is bunk. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Consensus is moot if you have verifiable facts/evidence to back a claim i.e. Science. Consensus is a collection of like opinions, highly valuable in politics, and highly destructive in Science.
I work for a Scientific US Gov't Org and I can tell you flatly that ~70% of funding is used to DRIVE political agendas and to SECURE more funding. This is not reserved at my agency, this is common across all US Gov't agencies and the State University systems. Playing ball means securing funding which means kissing the right party's butt at the right time.
Consensus is an excuse to continue or start a course of action when empirical data lacks.
"So per 24 hrs of light their is a warming of 20 degrees Celsius without factoring other variables."
Variables like the cooling, and cooling rate, that takes place over the same 24 hours? Variables like the temperature of the air directly above the surface which helps influence the rate of cooling? Heat transfer rates are heavily dependent on the difference in temperature between two adjacent regions (i.e. Surface and air above it). Variables like emissivity, albedo, convection currents, precipitation, differences in specific heat, etc? Those kind of variables? You must include all transfers of energy when describing a thermo system, not just one and expect it to apply it to to the others.
Do you think it is okay to ignore a major cooling method when describing the major heating method for the same region in space? As one method (radiation) adds energy, a combination of convection and radiation are transferring energy away from the surface towards space, with some conduction down into the ground. Recall that energy, on average, always moves towards a region of lower energy.
Your comments on Ice Water are nonsensical. I'm not sure that I can accurately guess your meaning.
Thanks,
Steve
@Dr Sanchez
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am amused that most of the people here denying the global warming theory are suggesting that we cannot trust the scientists. "
Nice, it is equally amusing that a self described PhD suggests that anyone, skeptics and advocates alike, needs to TRUST the 'scientists'. The Scientific Method provides a means to eliminate a need for trust/belief and supplies a means of individual corroboration/verification. Hello? We do not need nor want you to explain anything TO us, we need you to supply your METHODS and CONCLUSIONS in order to VERIFY your work/conclusions.
The AGW Elite are no longer going to dictate truths TO us, you are going to supply us with the info required to corroborate your work. Those in the AGW industry need to find new work soon if the IPCC is a good representation of AGW research as it is nothing more than a few truths wrapped up in Techno-Babble to make uncertainty look certain. A pig with lipstick.
"They think that science always comes down to a theory that can take only 20 minutes to read and thoroughly understand, and a simple equation like y = x^2."
You are out of touch Sir/Madam Sanchez. You apparently think that all/most skeptics are parrots. Not all nor most. I again offer to debate, with you or any other AGW Advocate, the merits of AGW Proof and likely natural influences that can describe the phenomena we observe today. I/we will show first hand that a PhD is not necessary to tear down the Ivory Towers the AGW Elite believe raises them above scrutiny.
If you have spent your whole life studying Climate Change and believe AGW is a measurable contributing factor, then I believe we can show that you have wasted much of your life. Consensus will only slow our progress, but we have time because the end is indeed far.
Do you care to put your money where your mouth is? You obviously believe you have the upper hand, perhaps you can start by providing End to End the list of methods you employed to arrive at your AGW conclusions. Or will you, like every other AGW Advocate, feign superiority via title or claim consensus where it is useless?
I care not if you ride a high horse, just so long as you don't ride in front of me without my consent.
Steve
I expected a well educated and civil community of posters on this site. What I found were ill mannered hateful arrogant rants. What intelligent person would waste their time with people like that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting that what I call the George Carlin rule on the arrogance implied by humans thinking they can "save the earth" isn't reflected adequately in the four categories (although perhaps in a couple of the more constructive and relevant comments, which are sadly few and far between, proving George's point): "The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. Weve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? ...[When we become too much of a nuisance], the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas." (From "The Planet is Fine," transcript can be found here: http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/george-carlin-the-planet-is-fine/ ). As for me, I think George has a point. I would, however, like to see us take the opportunity to learn from the science regarding all the ways in which we humans impact the planet negatively and attempt to stop doing so. Then we might just have a shot at not being a nuisance and may actually survive as a species beyond the next century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, you are not a scientist and do not understand the basic stupidity and ignorance behind the "Global warming theory" and its alarmist disseminators. It is as "scientific" as the "scientific" proof that a bumblebee canot fly. Human activity is negligible compared to the effect of variation in the sun's radiation (~1.3 kW/m^2). Greenhouse effect is as "dangerous" as the ozone holes used to be 20 years ago :o)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, you are not a scientist and do not understand the basic stupidity and ignorance behind the "Global warming theory" and its alarmist disseminators. It is as "scientific" as the scientific proof that a bumblebee canot fly. Human activity is negligible compared to the effect of constant variation in the sun's radiation (average ~1.3 kW/m^2). Greenhouse effect is as "dangerous" as the ozone holes used to be 20 years ago :o)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKantorek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you pick apart the theory on an actual technical basis?? Or are you simply going to argue via slight of hand?
Dr. Sanchez,
Are you going to actually argue the point through any means other than an appeal to authority? There are tons of Ph.D.s who don't simply "believe" global warming theory per se. And I'm one of them.
The two posters above are EXACTLY what disgusts me with this issue. Why is there not a place where the issue can actually be discussed in a constructive way? No, global warming theory is NOT completely correct. And, NO, it is not completely incorrect. But you listen to these two clowns and both would swear that its all or nothing. Its absurd.
This isn't a popularity contest. Its about understanding the truth. Sanchez, if you were actually honest you would admit that the quantification of GWT is very weak at best. That doesn't mean its not real, but the "science" behind it would NOT be called science in some of the more quantitative sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and etc.). I'm not saying that doesn't mean we should look into ways of doing something about it. But to simply swear that the results are gospel and claim that anyone who doubts them is ignorant and uneducated is completely and totally intellectually corrupt.
Kantorek, you simply dismiss the issue because you have found other things in science that scientists made mistakes on. Well, first, the ozone hole was a real problem. Scientists, however, underestimated the Earth's ability to regenerate 03 (ozone molecule). Why do you presume that has any connection to global warming?? Further, what does a bumblebee's wings have to do with it? Should I list off the things that scientists were right about?
You are both perfect examples of what is wrong with this conversation.
Dr. Physics, Ph.D. (i have one too Sanchez...big deal)
Dr Physics wrote: "Are you going to actually argue the point through any means other than an appeal to authority? There are tons of Ph.D.s who don't simply "believe" global warming theory per se. And I'm one of them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Physics, I learned a long time ago that arguing scientifically on blogs is a waste of my time. Yes, I do have a PhD: in statistics, and no matter how much I had discussed such topics with other people, I find it a waste of my time since posters generally don't understand the basics, and don't make any attempt to.
I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of PhDs who doubt global warming, but I will point out my original post again which shows that the more knowledgeable and published people are on the topic, the fewer the doubters. Why not have a look at that, and then come back to me acknowledging the fact that the experts on the subject who doubt it are few and far between.
Any by the way, Dr Physics, I am also surprised that you think arguing about the topic on a blog is at all worthwhile. May I make the following points:
1) Most people on posting on blogs are not experts on the subject, because experts generally don't waste their time trying to explain sophisticated scientific theories to idiots who refuse to listen.
2) Because of this, one who out-smarts another on a blog (and I'm not suggesting that you would out-smart me, but being a PhD in physics, I would presume you can understand the point of my argument) is meaningless. When one idiot out-argues another, it does not mean that the first idiot is right.
3) Therefore, rather than fighting about the science on a blog, I choose to appeal to the authorities on the subject who have been studying it their whole lives.
4) It is undisputable, as I have already pointed out in the links that I posted, that the people who have done the most scientific research on the subject are predominantly in agreement with the theory.
5) If you think you know something that they don't, then rather than wasting your time arguing with other idiots on blogs, why not try to publish a paper of your own on the topic? And then come back here and tell me the paper you have published, and I will be very happy to read it and post a reply in regard to your legitimate research. But I won't waste my time arguing about the science on blogs.
6) If you are not able to publish an original idea on the subject, then shut-up and listen to those who have.
Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
*Dr* Sanchez
PhD in statistical methods
The End is Far wrote: "Nice, it is equally amusing that a self described PhD suggests that anyone, skeptics and advocates alike, needs to TRUST the 'scientists'. The Scientific Method provides a means to eliminate a need for trust/belief and supplies a means of individual corroboration/verification. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm very sorry to say that it is much easier to doubt when you don't know the full picture than it is when you do know it. As I have pointed out before, it is not as simple as reading for a few hours on the subject and thinking that you have a full understanding of it. There are thousands of papers on the subject published every year, each with its own data. Each such paper is another piece of the puzzle.
I have never suggested that all doubters are parrots. But I do say, and will continue to say, that the more experts one are on the subject, the more they agree with the theory. See my original reply at the top with my original links.
If you think you know something that we experts don't know, then I invite you to publish a paper on the topic, and then come back here and give me a link to your research. Until that happens, then don't you think you're being a little naive by trying to make a point by arguing on blogs?
I'm sorry, folks, but I just have little tolerance for those who shout at the top of their voices on a subject that they have no expertise on. If you have not published on the topic, then listen to those who have. If you disagree with them, then publish your disagreement in scientific literature. If you cannot do so, then don't you think there is a legitimate reason for it??? So please, shut up or put up.
The End is Far Wrote: "Wrong. Sorry, but that is bunk. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Consensus is moot if you have verifiable facts/evidence to back a claim i.e. Science. Consensus is a collection of like opinions, highly valuable in politics, and highly destructive in Science." along with a bunch of other nonsense about "consensus".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust another example of a non-scientist trying to tell a scientist how science works. I have more than a dozen publications in international journals. I know how science works a lot more than you. I don't care where you work, I can promise you that you have never published original scientific research, because anyone who has would not be talking like this.
To find the magnitude of erronious science gobbled up by the masses, one need look no further than the low-fat diet theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMurray_B writes: "To find the magnitude of erronious science gobbled up by the masses, one need look no further than the low-fat diet theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a surprise, another skeptic who doubts the scientists. And such a complicated argument: "Because I can cite one example where scientific theory accepted by the masses was wrong, we should therefore doubt scientists in general (or at least whenever they disagree with my viewpoints)".
This is just another example on how the right-wing media has taken control of policy by giving people reason to doubt experts when it disagrees with what they want to believe.
#1. Anecdote does not drive climate discussion unless there are abnormally warm temperatures. Even science has become pc, and the global warming discussion leads the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven science has become politically correct, and the discussion of global warming is the most prominent example. Politicians and their supporters stand to make billions off global warming hysteria. #1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Sanchez,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read many of the papers on the subject. And I'm sorry, I have a rather technical background and the analysis that takes place in much of the work would be completely and totally discredited in experimental physics. And if you actually read what the experts say they do NOT attach their results with significant quantitative certainty. At the end of the day, it comes down to them weighing several factors and attaching a confidence factor to their results, based on how important they believe known factors may or may not be. Known factors mind you that they don't necessarily have the proper measure of yet. The next problem is how do you falsify the theory? I could go on and on about my issues with the actual quantitative analysis. I could also go on and on about the models that are used. At the end of the day, they absolutely cannot prove cause and effect. They can only prove correlation.
My problem is you rail about the ignorant. But the ignorant exist on both sides of the argument. I don't know how many Prius driving hemp wearers I know who absolutely attribute all warm days to global warming and all melting glacier ice to global warming.
I agree with you that the right wing media disgusts me on the issue. But so does the left wing media. Tell me how intellectually honest it is to discuss global warming in the context of a polar bear floating on a small iceberg in the arctic ocean?? Good god. They act as though ice didn't melt in the polar camps before man intervened and that polar bears don't annually face melting ice! And if you think Al Gore is anything but self serving you're crazy.
My point is people simply do not understand how a chaotic system works. And they do not understand the complexities of the system that is involved. Neither side knows what a feedback system is so proponents can understand how the models could be flawed and opponents don't understand how it could be right.
But the truth is...a lot of the "experts" aren't very clear either. Their data is clear and conclusive under the models they are applying. But that doesn't mean they are entirely relevant models to begin with.
Now that said, I think at least some warming is due to man. But how much I absolutely know that the "experts" do not know.
If you don't think this is a place for constructive discussion then why are you here? Just to satisfy your ego? Do you think anyone cares that you tell everyone their stupid? Do you think that does any good? If its a waste of your time then why are you here??
So, *Dr.* Sanchez, if you prefer to argue the science in a journal venue (which is perfectly reasonable), why are you wasting your time with the clowns here on the blog site? You're not exactly inspiring feelings of goodwill towards researchers or authorities at any level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood for thought:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that humans should do much more for nature. (Rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia, Burma, clean water, China, waste, over population, over fishing of the oceans especially the practice of shark fining and the list goes on and on)
But on the subject of the climate models I have no trust in the scientists. Think about a couple of points that dont ad up: CO2 measurements for the past 2 thousand years come out of the ice cores in Greenland and are compared to measurements from Hawaii for the past 40 years, next to a active volcano???
And scientists will confirm, that they dont know when water vapor in the air, turns into clouds or stays to be humidity. (Change the ratio by 1 % in there model and we are going for global cooling)
Another big one I dont get: is why no one knows that water vapor is the No. 1 Greenhouse gas. Why doesnt the media and scientist tell us that?
(has anyone been in the desert? Killing heat during the day and freezing at night! Why?? Correct: no water vapor!)
Isaiah 50:2 "When I came, why was there no one? When I called, why was there no one to answer? Was my arm too short to ransom you? Do I lack the strength to rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsalm 50:10-12 "for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it."
Dr Sanchez, Supergenius:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you be so kind and explain all of the robust metrics used to evaluate the AOGCMs to this lowly worker bee. The IPCC report seems to have left out the details. By the by, the LevenbergMarquardt method reproduces past climate much better than GISS Model E. Damn near perfect.
Dr. Snachez
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just another example of a non-scientist trying to tell a scientist how science works."
So tell us, what is the purpose of Consensus if you have hard data to back your claim? Do we need Consensus to make conclusions on Gravity, or are there ways for individuals to arrive at the same conclusion themselves?
"I have more than a dozen publications in international journals."
Name one. I subscribe to Nature and cannot tell you how many bunk publications I've read there, good stuff too. When I was actively studying science, I was taught to try to break my own hypotheses, when I could not, ask a colleague to, and when they could not, then it was probably safe to publish. This is obviously no longer a test for publication or peer review. You'll need to supply me with your work if you seek to impress me, your title and hubris do not. It could be that you've done work that has advanced something or just published something to increase your odds of getting more funding.
"I know how science works a lot more than you."
So says the Dr. behind the curtain. Perhaps the politics, but I challenge you on how conclusions are made. Put your money where your mouth is. Debate me on AGW.
"I don't care where you work, I can promise you that you have never published original scientific research, because anyone who has would not be talking like this."
My oh my, well, anyone who is funded by tax dollars, you know :) Scientific research that has firm conslusions that can/have been corroborated do not need a Cheerleading Squad, the ones that are based on correlations that have never been connected require Consensus for support.
If you're looking to impress the audience, how about debating me to show everyone just how smart and scientific you are? Save any excuses related to superiority, authority, or publication (unless you supply the publication for verification) as they are moot in debate.
Steve
galaxy_man,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this". . . why are you wasting your time with the clowns here on the blog site? You're not exactly inspiring feelings of goodwill towards researchers or authorities at any level."
That sure helped! :) What Authority are you speaking of? Scientific, Moral, Gov't? Most scientific fraud has been propped up by Scientific Authority (Center of Universe, Piltdown Man, Eugenics, DDT, and the list goes on). Save it.
This (me) clown has figured out AGW, due to CO2, is bunk no matter how much authority you think you have because there is zero physical evidence and simple thermodynamic laws render the GCM's void unless one can show how Covection within the Troposphere is a non-force with regards to cooling the surface.
The IPCC says Convection is responsible for only 10% (24 Watts/m^2) of the cooling when it is known that Convection is for more efficient than Radiaiton in transfering heat. Heating or cooling can be described as the work (force/distance/time) done transfering energy from one region to another. Convection moves far more energy to the tropopause over a given time than Radiation so it does far more work.
How can part of a system that does less work contribute more?
Steve
Dr Physics writes: "I agree with you that the right wing media disgusts me on the issue. But so does the left wing media."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's be clear about whose media is misleading the public the most. Well more than 90% of the scientific researchers on the subject agree with the global warming theory, yet 50% of the public disagrees with it. Furthermore, a large portion of that 50% is discrediting scientists in general. The proof of that is evident here. See reply by CommonPerson on 08/03/09, Drzakowski on 08/03/09 and many other places ("But, it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the investors and scientists GOAL to generate interest in the topic so more money will become available via larger groups or tax payer funded grants"), RDH on 08/03/09 (and other places), Soccerdad on 08/03/09, The End is Far on 08/03/09 and other places ("It may be interesting to see how common stupidity is among PhD's these days."), G. Karst on 08/03/09, hankroberts on 08/03/09, truthe2141 on 08/04/09, kantorek on 08/04/09, Murray_B on 08/04/09, Nexialist on 08/04/09, and Sharkfriend on 08/05/09.
So you can say you are disgusted by both sides of the media, but when one side has effectively convinced the public to distrust science, I'm not sure how you can condone this even if it agrees with your scientific viewpoint on global warming?
Dr Physics writes: "If you don't think this is a place for constructive discussion then why are you here? Just to satisfy your ego? Do you think anyone cares that you tell everyone their stupid? Do you think that does any good? If its a waste of your time then why are you here??"
As I have said, I will not argue about the specifics of the global warming theory on a blog. What I am arguing here is on the subject of the original article: why there are so many global warming disbelievers. I have stuck to that topic all along. I have made the point that it is driven by the media and organizations that have an interest in discrediting the theory. And now, in this post, I have shown you that a large number of skeptics are those who have expressed distrust of science and scientists. Do you agree with that point?
Sincerely,
Dr Sanchez
Interesting point of view? Its a bad study. Poring through the actual data would make that very apparent. A more interesting question is, "Who funded this, and why?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskaty
Gentlemen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we stop the talk about who has the better degree and has done more publications (and a publication does not have to be necessarily right it could just be a theory which has still to be proven.)
And the media! Has any one of you been in a news room and seen how they put reports together? Honestly they don’t know what there talking about, and that’s the problem.
I still have a burning question, and maybe somebody can help me with this:
Why are they making the CO2 measurements in Hawaii and not in Greenland next to the Ice core’s there pulling out??
Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a CO2 monitoring site because being isolated in the middle of the Pacific, the air is exceptionally pure. Being high, it is above the inversion layer. There was also already a convenient road to the summit built by the military. The purity is good??? as long as contamination from local volcanic sources is detected and removed. ??? ((Kileaua (the most active volcano on Earth)))
As a engineer we would make a measurement at same place, we would want to make a comparison to.
Regards from Switzerland
Interesting article. Explains why there is so little "meeting of the minds" as we all have our own little psychological axes to grind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was replying to you DOCTOR Sanchez, but I am aware of a few more PhD's with arrogance and authority issues, you're just the AGW Science Advocate du jour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you won't defend your position on Climate Change on this blog, how about another?
The reason I am skeptical of many scientists in the GW field is a lack of published methods and a abundance of nested correlations that Almost Almost Almost make a firm conclusion that is based on other work that almost (Highly Likely) has some conclusion that again comes without Methods often claiming they are intellectual property :) which only invites more questions.
Who paid for it? Why no Methods? How were variables in the GCM arrived at? Are many of these AGW scientists Liars or just Poor scientists?
The end result is the same, reduced interest in funding folks who Always Almost make valued use of the funds they were generously given.
I think it is quite sad for the Scientific Community that AGW has taken the front row. They claim superiority yet refuse to back up their claims and often use hearsay parroting the Almost work of another in order to deny they actually did the incomplete work themselves, but still speak of these works as verified. This poorly reflects on all publicly funded works, good and bad.
Dr. Sanchez, know that funding will continue to disappear as the policy that AGW and other scientists push for to keep their funding flowing disables economies world wide.
You will not debate me because you are not fit to. Not because you do not have the education, but because AGW has NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I will describe CONVECTION until it is obvious to all that the GHE cannot be responsible for what is being said of it. You will have to show that Radiation is more efficient at transferring energy than Convection within the Troposphere. I'm very confident you cannot. Don't worry, refusing debate with the less Titled is in fashion these days, so you have company.
The IPCC has grossly underestimated Convection in the cooling of the Earth's surface and so has any true believer in the AGW Hypothesis. All Science will suffer when the debate is finally forced and AGW is found to be fundamentally flawed and grossly exaggerated.
Good day,
Steve
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI bring forth to you one of the major sources that demonstrates my point on how right-wing media has deceived the public about global warming, and how they spread so much misinformation that it even contradicts itself.
Here you are:
The website is wattsupwiththat.com .
At the end of June, they insisted that the global temperature anomaly for June was important (the temperature anomly for June was about the same as the temperature anomalies for 30 years ago):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
"Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers."
The full context: it is claimed that "rational thinkers" would look at the temperature anomaly for June and decide that global warming has ended.
When this article came out, reports of "global cooling" popped up all over the web. Just do a Google news search and you will find hundreds of such articles.
In July, they tried to push this argument further. They had at least 2 articles about record cold temperatures in various places in the USA during some time of the month, and it somehow managed to think that this was more proof of global cooling. Here are the articles:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/10/noaa-july-temperature-below-average-for-the-u-s/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/02/roundup-of-some-interesting-july-weather-records/
Finally, when the global temperature anomaly for July came out, to their surprise, it was much warmer than they were expecting. If one were to use the same logic as these previous articles did, one would conclude that global warming is back and worse than before. But rather that being consistent, the website changed its argument. Suddenly, the monthly temperature anomaly means little to nothing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/12/is-global-temperature-a-random-walk
"But the monthly values will vary substantially around this basically flat trend, with individual monthly values saying little, if anything, about the long term direction of global temperature."
So there you go, proof that the major source of misinformation is right-wing media. They change their argument for skepticism quicker than the wind changes.
Global warming is a scam, fact. The global temperature is decreasing not increasing!!!! The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using microwave sounding units show no appreciable temperature increases, especially during the critical period 1978-97 when surface temperatures jumped, which makes it likely that that surface anomaly was due to Urban Heat Island effect. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation. The PDO coincides with Global temperatures and has turned negative in the last few years along with Global temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe models also ignored the significant effect of solar radiation ions that cause clusters of Ozone, Sulphur Dioxide, and water vapour that attract water vapour and form clouds. Studies on the Greenland Ice shelf show there is no increased velocity of ice movement whatsoever! According to the erroneously named "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet" There was one extremely and suspicious large ice movement over one week in Aug 2006, but up until and since then it's been as it always was.
The idea that the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause more water vapour to form which in turn would block (OLR)outgoing long wave radiation creating GW is false. As Upper level temperature and CO2 have increased, water vapour has a tendency to decrease in the Upper Troposphere which overall allows the same amount of OLR to escape.
The Climate models also predict an unrealistic amount of water vapour in the upper atmosphere due to faulty sub-grid parameterization and the overestimation of the role of cumulonimbus convection in bringing vapour to the upper atmosphere.
Cumulonimbus convection only occurs in 2-3 percent of the global area, The mass that goes up in the deep convective clouds is then advected out and sinks due to radiational cooling and the need for mass balance. ALSO the Cumulonimbus convection actually leads to more return flow subsidence, enhance upper level subsidence actually acts to REDUCE upper layer water vapour and enhances the Outgoing Longwave Radiation!!
The grid which is a Global unit of area measurement in the Climate models does not take into account sub-grid convective/subsidence and produces a false average activity. These faulty parameterization schemes underestimate the amount of
activity and Outgoing Longwave Radiation and lead to a warmng effect. The Models also predict a large corelation between the upper and lower Troposphere which causes them to artificially moisten the Upper region when in actual fact observations show little or no correlation! This is important as it's not the total amount of precipital water that matters(this goes up with temperature) but the amount near the Upper Tropospheric emission level that's important as this determines the amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
Computer models also predict that Greenhouse wrming will cause a hotspot between 8-12 kms over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. This hotspot has been proven not to exist!
Conclusion: Such scientifically erroneous procedures and conclusions are most likely politically motivated and part of a scheme to make billions/trillions from carbon taxes, raising power/food prices and providing a threat that scares the population into letting the government pass restrictive laws
Global warming is a scam, fact. The global temperature is decreasing not increasing!!!! The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using microwave sounding units show no appreciable temperature increases, especially during the critical period 1978-97 when surface temperatures jumped, which makes it likely that that surface anomaly was due to Urban Heat Island effect. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation. The PDO coincides with Global temperatures and has turned negative in the last few years along with Global temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe models also ignored the significant effect of solar radiation ions that cause clusters of Ozone, Sulphur Dioxide, and water vapour that attract water vapour and form clouds. Studies on the Greenland Ice shelf show there is no increased velocity of ice movement whatsoever! According to the erroneously named "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet" There was one extremely and suspicious large ice movement over one week in Aug 2006, but up until and since then it's been as it always was.
The idea that the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause more water vapour to form which in turn would block (OLR)outgoing long wave radiation creating GW is false. As Upper level temperature and CO2 have increased, water vapour has a tendency to decrease in the Upper Troposphere which overall allows the same amount of OLR to escape.
The Climate models also predict an unrealistic amount of water vapour in the upper atmosphere due to faulty sub-grid parameterization and the overestimation of the role of cumulonimbus convection in bringing vapour to the upper atmosphere.
Cumulonimbus convection only occurs in 2-3 percent of the global area, The mass that goes up in the deep convective clouds is then advected out and sinks due to radiational cooling and the need for mass balance. ALSO the Cumulonimbus convection actually leads to more return flow subsidence, enhance upper level subsidence actually acts to REDUCE upper layer water vapour and enhances the Outgoing Longwave Radiation!!
The grid which is a Global unit of area measurement in the Climate models does not take into account sub-grid convective/subsidence and produces a false average activity. These faulty parameterization schemes underestimate the amount of
activity and Outgoing Longwave Radiation and lead to a warmng effect. The Models also predict a large corelation between the upper and lower Troposphere which causes them to artificially moisten the Upper region when in actual fact observations show little or no correlation! This is important as it's not the total amount of precipital water that matters(this goes up with temperature) but the amount near the Upper Tropospheric emission level that's important as this determines the amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
Computer models also predict that Greenhouse wrming will cause a hotspot between 8-12 kms over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. This hotspot has been proven not to exist!
Conclusion: Such scientifically erroneous procedures and conclusions are most likely politically motivated and part of a scheme to make billions/trillions from carbon taxes, raising power/food prices and providing a threat that scares the population into letting the government pass restrictive laws
hmm..so is der any one who can uncover the myth about global warming ,which s becoming complex with copenhagen accord.i wd lk to ask dr.sanchez ,do carbondioxide have an effect on G warming ?? i feel these are pranks created by developed countries to suppress the developing and under developed countries to hold their positions ,as we can see many countries are zooming in technology on par with other countries which are super powers !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this