A "solar minimum" means less activity, but also a warmer sun. It is arguable that it would, or would not, have the impact of directly causing certain warming trends in history (including this one), but it should be brought out that "solar minimum" does not mean less heat. It means less surface activity and actually suggests GREATER heat.
That is just wrong. Total solar irradiance varies in phase with the sunspot cycle:
(Apologies for using wikipedia but this is so fundamentally wrong that I'm not sure where to go for a better rebuttal).
Wait a second. If the denialists are wrong about that fact, then could they be wrong about a whole bunch of other stuff too?
It seems to me that those "against" global warming are mostly armchair scientists. A few blog articles here, a couple of articles in Wired there, and you have a voice!
Recipe: Take a relatively intelligent person, tell them that scientists hate America and capitalism, inject a dose of religion and it seems that the result is someone that doesn't "believe" in global warming or evolution. Ultimately, it's a pointless debate as arguing with a fundamentalist is like trying to tell a Catholic that the cracker they just munched on is not literally the body of Jesus. In their mind, it just doesn't compute. They HAVE to be right otherwise their world view just crumbles away.
How on earth someone can read that list and go against the opinion of the best scientists all over the world is beyond me. I suppose it's a conspiracy... sigh.
A "solar minimum" means less activity, but also a warmer sun. It is arguable that it would, or would not, have the impact of directly causing certain warming trends in history (including this one), but it should be brought out that "solar minimum" does not mean less heat. It means less surface activity and actually suggests GREATER heat.
That is just wrong. Total solar irradiance varies in phase with the sunspot cycle:
(Apologies for using wikipedia but this is so fundamentally wrong that I'm not sure where to go for a better rebuttal).
Wait a second. If the denialists are wrong about that fact, then could they be wrong about a whole bunch of other stuff too?
It seems to me that those "against" global warming are mostly armchair scientists. A few blog articles here, a couple of articles in Wired there, and you have a voice!
Recipe: Take a relatively intelligent person, tell them that scientists hate America and capitalism, inject a dose of religion and it seems that the result is someone that doesn't "believe" in global warming or evolution. Ultimately, it's a pointless debate as arguing with a fundamentalist is like trying to tell a Catholic that the cracker they just munched on is not literally the body of Jesus. In their mind, it just doesn't compute. They HAVE to be right otherwise their world view just crumbles away.
How on earth someone can read that list and go against the opinion of the best scientists all over the world is beyond me. I suppose it's a conspiracy... sigh.
I can only assume you are being sarcastic, on several levels.
A little off topic, but Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything controversial. I think that may be one reason why Lamont sort of apologized for using it. He did accurately call me on a false statement though. I had not done my research by half. And I did NOT use wikipedia to come to that conclusion. His using it primed the pump though.
How on earth someone can read that list and go against the opinion of the best scientists all over the world is beyond me. I suppose it's a conspiracy... sigh.
A lot of people have been asking for the evidence that humans are causing the warming, and what they get back doesn't answer the question, but does all too often insult their intelligence. So they start being skeptical of what the financial motivations might be for alarmist proclamations. If there were more answers and less polemics, then there wouldn't be the huge percentage of the population who remain unconvinced.
I can only assume you are being sarcastic, on several levels.
A little off topic, but Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything controversial. I think that may be one reason why Lamont sort of apologized for using it. He did accurately call me on a false statement though. I had not done my research by half. And I did NOT use wikipedia to come to that conclusion. His using it primed the pump though.
Wikipedia is ok for things that are controversial, but global warming is so far from being controversial it's just insane. The vast consensus is that it's real, it's happening, and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of it. It's kinda like the evolution thing, how proponents of "intelligent design" want to "teach the controversy of evolution". Well, sorry but there is no controversy, not among 99.9% of scientists. Climate change is not quite as universally believed, but every year that passes results in more evidence and an ever growing consensus.
I think those reading this should realize that fact. On the one side we have the vast majority of the world's climate (and other) scientists. On the other hand we have some people on some forum, sending around some links. Me personally? I'm not at all qualified to comment on climate science, so I won't. I just don't know why others that are also not qualified think they know better than the world's scientists. Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?
Hence, my comment about it all being a "conspiracy", otherwise you couldn't possibly have any rational belief in what you're saying... You're elevating your own knowledge and experience in climate science way beyond where it is in reality.
How on earth someone can read that list and go against the opinion of the best scientists all over the world is beyond me. I suppose it's a conspiracy... sigh.
A lot of people have been asking for the evidence that humans are causing the warming, and what they get back doesn't answer the question, but does all too often insult their intelligence. So they start being skeptical of what the financial motivations might be for alarmist proclamations. If there were more answers and less polemics, then there wouldn't be the huge percentage of the population who remain unconvinced.
Why do the world's climate scientists (almost) all agree that humans are a significant component of the warming, and that climate change is real and happening? Do all the world's scientists have the same political/financial motivation? Do scientists not normally ask for evidence of things they choose to believe are factually true?
The huge percentage of the population does not remain unconvinced.
Yes, a Fox News article! About 80% of the American public thinks global warming exists and 79% of the American public (that believes in global warming) believes that it's either wholly or partly due to human activity.
What I think we have here, is that we have people that don't WANT to believe that global warming is real, happening, and partly/mostly our fault. If you believed that, then things might have to be done:
-Get rid of my fast car/SUV
-More expensive electricity
-Lower standard of living, perhaps (remains to be seen given technology advances)
-Nasty changes in weather, etc
Personally, I don't WANT to believe that global warming is real either! I'd love to be able to continue to drive a fast car, SUV or other gas guzzler without it affecting the atmosphere. I'd love it if coal were clean, and CO2 didn't matter, as we have tons of cheap coal in the United States.
Ultimately, I think it's likely that moving to alternative energy is going to impact our standard of living somewhat, for a period of time while the adjustment occurs. Overall, though, it's likely necessary and will help keep the planet nice for our children. And our children's children. And our children's children's children! (sorry, had to do the Monty Python reference)
What I think we have here, is that we have people that don't WANT to believe that global warming is real
And then there are those of us who really, really liked the movie Waterworld and are doing everything in our power to make it a reality.
And I'm not going to turn off my global warming doomsday device unless the UN pays me...
One MILLION Dollars!!!
HA HA HA HA HA
(See it isn't a conspiracy. Just the actions of one slightly disgruntled and ever so mad scientist. That'll teach Laura for laughing at me in fifth grade.)
I can only assume you are being sarcastic, on several levels.
A little off topic, but Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything controversial. I think that may be one reason why Lamont sort of apologized for using it. He did accurately call me on a false statement though. I had not done my research by half. And I did NOT use wikipedia to come to that conclusion. His using it primed the pump though.
Wikipedia is ok for things that are controversial, but global warming is so far from being controversial it's just insane. The vast consensus is that it's real, it's happening, and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of it. It's kinda like the evolution thing, how proponents of "intelligent design" want to "teach the controversy of evolution". Well, sorry but there is no controversy, not among 99.9% of scientists. Climate change is not quite as universally believed, but every year that passes results in more evidence and an ever growing consensus.
I think those reading this should realize that fact. On the one side we have the vast majority of the world's climate (and other) scientists. On the other hand we have some people on some forum, sending around some links. Me personally? I'm not at all qualified to comment on climate science, so I won't. I just don't know why others that are also not qualified think they know better than the world's scientists. Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?
Hence, my comment about it all being a "conspiracy", otherwise you couldn't possibly have any rational belief in what you're saying... You're elevating your own knowledge and experience in climate science way beyond where it is in reality.
Rarely do I see so many words used to say the other side is wrong without really saying any more than "the other side is wrong". There is no qualitative substance to that post. Take this comment: "Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?" No, I wouldn't (although I FIRMLY believe that I know more than ALgore). But then, the worlds climate scientists do not agree, and many agree with me. More precisely, I shouold say I agree with them. Here are a few: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... niers.aspx
And here are a few more: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
The point is, you really need to keep up with this. There is no longer a consensus, and for your information, it is one of the most controversial subjects in existence right now.
OK, so I started taking the test for dummies, and by the third question it became blatantly obvious it was a test written by dummies.
Here's the page you'll get if you answer the third question "incorrectly". According to these geniuses, the main cause of global warming is "orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output."
Now, the solar output question is legitimate and is up for scientific debate. But orbital eccentricities of the Earth?????????
In a poll a few years back, nearly have the students at (I think Harvard) thought we had seasons due to proximity to the sun. IE the earth was closer in the summer than in the winter, although in the northern hemisphere the opposite is true. I think your page came from people who must believe something similar, since orbital variations are miniscule.
It seems to me that those "against" global warming are mostly armchair scientists. A few blog articles here, a couple of articles in Wired there, and you have a voice!
I'd agree.
And it seems like there's a recipe out there to recycle very old scientific arguments over global warming like they're fresh and new. Typically if you pick an argument over global climate that was actually decided in the 1950s you can make a very plausible argument to someone who is only an armchair scientist and convince them that there is huge amounts of "doubt". The reason why it is plausible is that if it was debatable amongst scientists back in the 1950s, when we still knew a fairly fantastic amount about the world, then the average american blog reader on the internet will find it plausible.
So take the whole issue over if CO2 is a greenhouse gas. First of all you have to go back to the turn of the century and understand a bit about quantum mechanics and absorption spectra and how greenhouses work. The basic idea is that CO2 as a molecule will not absorb visible light radiation while absorbing radiation in the IR (like the glass in a greenhouse does). Now the problem is that H2O and CO2 are both greenhouse gases and if you look at the IR spectra for H2O and CO2 at standard temperature and pressure and typical concentrations on the surface you'll find that H2O is saturated and increasing the levels of CO2 won't affect IR transmissibility at all. Thus, it was thought until the 1950s that increasing levels of CO2 would not cause a greenhouse gas effect because H2O already saturated the IR.
However, in the 1950s the USAF became very concerned with the abosrption of IR in the upper atmosphere for reasons which should be obvious. What they found was that the upper atmosphere is colder, thinner and dryer. When you back off the temperature and pressure of a gas then them molecules of that gas will be moving slower and there will be less doppler shifting of the absorption lines of the molecule and the IR absorption becomes more like a fine-toothed comb rather than large bands due to the lines bleeding into each other. This means that in the upper atmosphere emission lines of CO2 and H2O do not necessarily overlap so that even when one is saturated, cranking up the other will still cause more aborption. Also, with the gas being more dry in the upper atmophere that means that H2O is less saturated. These facts then need to be combined with the understanding that if you increase the greenhouse effect at higher levels in the atmosphere it will cause heating at all lower levels of the atmosphere (analogous to throwing on a sweater). If you don't have a good intuitive grasp of physics you're probably lost at this point, and you definitely won't understand the papers where scientists have done 1d models of climate in the atmosphere where they show that CO2 actually is a greenhouse gas. It was complicated enough that it wasn't obvious to scientists in the 1950s and it remains something that climate skeptics can trot out and convince a large number of people.
Similarly, the mantra that we can't trust any computer models is a wonderful way to simply put your head in the sand and refuse to deal with a large chunk of the analysis that has been done on the global climate. What is always missing is that scuccessful models have to be able to explain our historical record which is measured in order to be successful. So, in the recent past when you introduce the pinatubo explosion in 1991 the model needs to be able to predict the observed climate response to that volcano. The models actually are tested.
However, on the other side you can take a primative climate model such as: "maybe the sun did all the forcing in the past 20 years, did you ever think of that? well did you?!?!?!?" Okay, the skeptics are actually introducing a global climate model there, that the variability in the solar forcing due to the sun's intrinsic variability (which has been well measured over the past 50 years) has been responsible for all the warming in the past 20 years. First of all you have an issue because there must be some kind of strange response lag in the solar forcing causing warming, because we know that we're currently in a solar minimum, so it must take decades for an increase in the sun's output to affect the climate and that the current minimum that we're in will result in cooling decades later. That flies in the face of everything we know about the interaction of the sun with the climate and there's no postulated mechanism to make that occur, but lets accept it. What they're proposing is a implicit strength of how much the variability in the sun affects the climate. So you can take that strength of the forcing on the climate and run the observed variability in solar output backwards and the climate model that the skeptics have proposed completely fails to predicted the observed variability. On the other hand a much smaller forcing, with no strange response lag, combined with models of volcanos explains the observed climate variability before the 1970s.
So, while on the one hand they feel free to deny the results of more complicated climate models which have been tested against historically observed climatology measures, they want us to unquestionably accept a trivially simple model of climate change due to solar forcing which is easily falsified by looking at the historical record. Unfortunately, being simple and easy to understand does not make it right, and in fact it doesn't work at all. That doesn't stop them from loudly proclaiming themselves geniuses for coming up with a possible explanation for global warming that climatologists had never considered before.
People, how dumb do you think scientists are? Do you really think they're reading skeptic blogs going "oh my god! the big fucking ball of hot gas in the sky! how did we miss that thing! rewrite all the GCM codes quick and fix it before anyone notices!" The sun is actually the *best* understood piece of this whole puzzle.
and by the third question it became blatantly obvious it was a test written by dummies.
Maybe those dummies are working for NASA:
"A review article, primarily for scientists: Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to the Present (Ma is million years), by James Zachos, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas and Katharina Billups, "Science" vol 292, p. 686, 27 April 2001. Goes beyond variations due to the precession of the equinoxes and also includes variations of orbit eccentricity, inclination between spin axis and the ecliptic and in the precession cycle itself."\
OK, so I started taking the test for dummies, and by the third question it became blatantly obvious it was a test written by dummies.
Here's the page you'll get if you answer the third question "incorrectly". According to these geniuses, the main cause of global warming is "orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output."
Now, the solar output question is legitimate and is up for scientific debate. But orbital eccentricities of the Earth?????????
In a poll a few years back, nearly have the students at (I think Harvard) thought we had seasons due to proximity to the sun. IE the earth was closer in the summer than in the winter, although in the northern hemisphere the opposite is true. I think your page came from people who must believe something similar, since orbital variations are miniscule.
Milankovich cycles in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the inclination angle of the Earth are actually responsible for the Ice Ages. It has a small effect, but the positive feedback effects of CO2 and other GHGs and other climate forcing factors have caused the Earth to have Ice Ages in phase with the Milankovich cycles.
One global warming skeptic argument is to point to the correlation between Ice Ages and CO2 levels and to note that the CO2 lags the changes in temperature. Which is correct, because CO2 is acting as a feedback in that case and the primary forcing is due to the Milankovich cycles. You have to have CO2 amplification, however, in order to get Ice Ages out of the Milankovich cycles. So that establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas and that increasing concentrations of CO2 will have an effect on the climate. No climate model predicts that CO2 oscillations caused the Ice Ages.
Now, given that the change in solar forcing caused by the Milankovich cycles is sufficient to cause the Ice Ages that should also establish an upper bound on the intrinsic variability of the solar forcing over the past million years, otherwise the inherent variability of the sun would washout the effect of the Milankovich cycles completely. This would be an extension of invalidating the solar forcing model of post-1980 climate change from invalidating it against modern historical records to invalidating it against paleoclimate data. So far I haven't been able to find out if anyone has done this kind of analysis, however. Clearly, though, if you turn up the intrinsic variability of the sun enough and the effect of solar forcing on the climate you should be able to invalidate that model against the historical record of the Ice Ages.
People, how dumb do you think scientists are? Do you really think they're reading skeptic blogs going "oh my god! the big fucking ball of hot gas in the sky! how did we miss that thing! rewrite all the GCM codes quick and fix it before anyone notices!" The sun is actually the *best* understood piece of this whole puzzle.
Rarely do I see so many words used to say the other side is wrong without really saying any more than "the other side is wrong".
Agreed
The point is, you really need to keep up with this. There is no longer a consensus, and for your information, it is one of the most controversial subjects in existence right now.
And this statement of yours is a prime example of saying something completely without any basis. There is a consensus. There is very little controversy in scientific circles outside of minor details which change the gross predictions very little.
You want there to be controversy and lack of consensus, but there really isn't.
You'd do better whining about how the scientific establishment is keeping all your guys down and oppression from the man is stifling open scientific debate.
Rarely do I see so many words used to say the other side is wrong without really saying any more than "the other side is wrong". There is no qualitative substance to that post. Take this comment: "Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?" No, I wouldn't (although I FIRMLY believe that I know more than ALgore). But then, the worlds climate scientists do not agree, and many agree with me. More precisely, I shouold say I agree with them.
I refer the honorable gentlemen to the scientific consensus referred to previously.
In addition, I found a whole Wikipedia article about this massive controversy that is on the minds of the public and scientists on a daily basis.
It turns out that there is a pretty solid scientific consensus. Take a look at the article...
If you have some opposing youtube videos, comedian article, or books written by authors of fictional books about dinosaurs, send them my way - I'd be glad to take a look.
The point is, you really need to keep up with this. There is no longer a consensus, and for your information, it is one of the most controversial subjects in existence right now.
Is is not. Maybe in your world it is. To the MAJORITY of the rest of the world, there is a generally accepted consensus. Really, you sound *very* much like the crazy "intelligent design" proponents with their fake "controversy" and "evolution: a theory in crisis". It's uncanny.
Just because there is a vocal minority that doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus doesn't mean there is any sizable or significant controversy.
"In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today."
"In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence "substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming," compared to three out of four (74%) today."
The very first argument there is bogus. Over the past million years CO2 levels have oscillated between about 200-300 ppm of CO2. We currently are in an interglacial and should have about 300 ppm of CO2, but we're currently up around 375 ppm CO2 and the historical graph looks like this:
How can you possibly claim that this looks like a normal interglacial period?
And the author is entirely correct that the Earth oscillates between a hothouse and an icehouse climate on very large scales:
More "recently" the period before the current relatively stable cycle of Ice Ages looks like this:
However, the CO2 concentrations during the hothouse phases were also on the order of 2000 ppm:
The mechanism for the recent antarctic reglaciation is also thought to be the gradual trapping of CO2 in rocks and the capture of carbon by decaying organisms on the north pole seabed. As we dig up the carbon and burn it and increase the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere we will, with certainty, also melt the poles and return the Earth to a climate that it had 50 million years ago.
However, it isn't going to be as gradual, and rapid climate change means disruption.
I'm "conservative" in that I think we should not violently experiment with the Earth's climate to see what happens if we turn up the heat by 5C. We know due to the PETM event that we'll experience a really massive extinction event, and that is probably an indication that the disruption to human life and productivity will be large. Plus we'll be leaving the planet with much less biodiversity for future generations -- although the brunt of the human suffering is likely going to be carried by the third world -- but 9/11 should have taught us that we're not isolated from what goes on everywhere else.
Rarely do I see so many words used to say the other side is wrong without really saying any more than "the other side is wrong". There is no qualitative substance to that post. Take this comment: "Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?" No, I wouldn't (although I FIRMLY believe that I know more than ALgore). But then, the worlds climate scientists do not agree, and many agree with me. More precisely, I shouold say I agree with them.
I refer the honorable gentlemen to the scientific consensus referred to previously.
In addition, I found a whole Wikipedia article about this massive controversy that is on the minds of the public and scientists on a daily basis.
It turns out that there is a pretty solid scientific consensus. Take a look at the article...
If you have some opposing youtube videos, comedian article, or books written by authors of fictional books about dinosaurs, send them my way - I'd be glad to take a look.
The point is, you really need to keep up with this. There is no longer a consensus, and for your information, it is one of the most controversial subjects in existence right now.
Is is not. Maybe in your world it is. To the MAJORITY of the rest of the world, there is a generally accepted consensus. Really, you sound *very* much like the crazy "intelligent design" proponents with their fake "controversy" and "evolution: a theory in crisis". It's uncanny.
Just because there is a vocal minority that doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus doesn't mean there is any sizable or significant controversy.
I send the youtube to make it fun
After all, this IS a real estate site.
I've linked to several articles and sites ranging from the silly to the very serious. You can lead a horse to water...
"In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today."
"In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence "substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming," compared to three out of four (74%) today."
Say it with me: consensus.
Lemmings have much stronger consensus. It doesn't make them right.Scientists are not gods. They are trained in a particular field and have opinions based on what they discover on their own, or their analysis of the discoveries and conclusions of other scientists. They are like everyone else, with the same wants and needs, the same flaws etc. Meanwhile, many qualified scientists are blackballed for disagreeing with the mainstream. A major problem is covered here for example: http://nov55.com/ovr.html#1
This is the political issue of the 21st century. The mere fact that science is being politicized should send shivers down everyones spine, especially in a world where eugenics and other dispicable belief systems have not only prevailed from time to time but even got the support of the supreme court.
Be careful what you determine to be the actual facts and, more importantly, their actual implications for the future. We really could be entering a Brave New World, and it will be on the coat tails of the Global Warming Scare.
I've posted plenty of reputable sources that have bucked the mainstream and been punished for it. Some of them even WERE part of the "consensus" at one time. The models have been proven to be seriously flawed. It is proven that CO2 is a byproduct of a warming period. This is NOT rocket science as some would have you believe. It is actually understandable by anyone with an open mind, reasonable intelligence, and a willingness to read the information. The evidence against Global Warming is legion, yet ignored, as demonstrated on this thread. The focus is on a couple of youtube videos, yet the serious links are ignored.
But the lemmings will run their course until they are all off the cliff and the rest of us will pick up the pieces. But they want to control us. Well, that takes money. And with the dire straights the entire world is facing on the economic front, it will be difficult to convince the masses to adhere to the silly restrictions the government may attempt to impose. And based on the public's opinion now on drilling for oil, it may be political suicide to force any of the "global warming" controls. We are in for very interesting times.
It is like living in a movie.
You guys have fun here. I'm off to more interesting endeavors now. I keep forgetting this is not a broad stage, but a few guys discussing around a water cooler. It's sort of a waste of time if it's not fun. The serious stuff is with the "joe sixpacks" in our country that will, with an open mind, read about the 38 shunned deniers and the other "global warming alarmists" that have wised up and come out with the truth. Their numbers slowly grow.
Lamont, you used the hockey stick. I don't believe it!
yeah, its a piece of well-understood scientific data.
(and actually the hockeystick is just the graph of the past 1,000 years, the full ice core graph that goes back nearly a million years is not the hockey stick graph, unless you've got a really beat up hockey stick -- and that one is far more interesting in establishing the historical norms over the past million years -- the hockeystick graph is just coming along for the ride there).
I think I've linked to it three or four times here but nobody has responded.
That one makes me cry. The total heat output of all volcanism on the earth's surface (about 0.075 W/m^3) is a tiny fraction of the 3.7W/m^3 forcing necessary to increase the earth's temperature. The sun is a much stronger force than volcanism in terms of a heat source. Volcanoes only become significant due to cooling from aerosols when you get a huge equatorial volcano like pinatubo. You might melt stuff locally right in the area of the volcano, but over all of antarctica or all of the arctic it washes out completely.
Here's a better picture of the vostok ice core data without the hockeystick graph, so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities:
The point still stands, the ice cores establish "stable" ranges of 200-300 ppm of CO2, and our current level of 375 ppm is way out of line with our recent geological history.
I think I've linked to it three or four times here but nobody has responded.
That one makes me cry. The total heat output of all volcanism on the earth's surface (about 0.075 W/m^3) is a tiny fraction of the 3.7W/m^3 forcing necessary to increase the earth's temperature. The sun is a much stronger force than volcanism in terms of a heat source. Volcanoes only become significant due to cooling from aerosols when you get a huge equatorial volcano like pinatubo. You might melt stuff locally right in the area of the volcano, but over all of antarctica or all of the arctic it washes out completely.
Taking the most obvious example of geothermal energy -- Iceland -- has peaks of 0.3 W/m^3 from geothermal. So for localized heating having an area the size of Iceland with an extra 10% global warming vs. CO2 due to geothermal energy is plausible. That's being charitable and giving you a very large hot spot.
If geothermal was a stronger force, more nations other than Iceland would be getting significant amounts of power from it.
As I read the points and counter points made by others on this forum, and myself, I come away with the following thoughts:
1) I know very little about climate science, as illustrated by Lamont's obvious knowledge and experience in this area. It's amazing just how much I don't know about the topic. I purposefully, therefore, don't *claim* to know a lot about it.
2) Most of the "so, what about X? Got ya!" points illustrated by the denialists seem to be promptly countered by Lamont (who seems to have actual experience in this area). The GW denialists probably have a much better time at dinner parties or in casual conversations with people not experienced in this area (like me) because their knowledge *seems* to be very well informed and they can reel off "facts" and studies and tidbits. It does worry me somewhat that someone who continues to be corrected on various points, continues to post links to articles/papers that might be wrong too. I mean, not all science is right! That's one of the points of science. It's falsifiable, it evolves (couldn't resist), and *eventually* a consensus is reached after enough evidence is in. That's where we're at with GW.
3) The reason I don't read a lot of the scientific papers on either side of the debate is that it's obvious that you need to have a lot of experience and/or education in the area. Robroy claims it's not rocket science, which is literally true as it's actually climate science. So the same person that claims this stuff is easy, and therefore anyone should just go ahead and read the papers and make their own minds up, is actually making all kinds of errors which are immediately corrected by someone else that has experience in the field. If it's such an easy subject, why does Robroy continue to get things wrong? (note, again, I'm not claiming to get things right, I'm just choosing to not comment or analyze a subject on which I know very little).
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
– Nature, 8 Nov 1906, 25/2
Lemmings have much stronger consensus. It doesn't make them right.Scientists are not gods. They are trained in a particular field and have opinions based on what they discover on their own, or their analysis of the discoveries and conclusions of other scientists. They are like everyone else, with the same wants and needs, the same flaws etc. Meanwhile, many qualified scientists are blackballed for disagreeing with the mainstream. A major problem is covered here for example: http://nov55.com/ovr.html#1
Robroy,
The majority of scientists also believe in the laws of gravity. That doesn't make them wrong. Scientists are indeed not gods, and neither are they tooth fairies.
That link is one of the silliest web pages I've seen in a long time!!! It is stupidly simplistic, makes baseless claims, and is obviously slanted in the "science is bad - trust nobody!" direction. Some choice quotes:
"There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming."
I guess all the climate scientists are just wrong! LOL!
"Sometimes it is shear propaganda that overtakes science, as in global warming. The go-along scientists never look at the starting point; they assumed it has already been worked out. When an El Nino warms the Pacific Ocean, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, and after the El Nino, the CO2 level decreases. This shows that oceans (not human activity) control the atmospheric level of CO2, rapidly and totally."
Nice! It's so simple when you say it like that.
"Nowdays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory."
That's such nonsense. Scientists' work is peer reviewed, and other scientists verify or invalidate their results. Scientists *love* to prove other scientists wrong - it gets them better jobs sometimes, and it might even get them in some fancy journal so they can impress their other scientist pals.
"To understand what is happening in science, you have to realize that as science gets more complex, fewer scientists understand the subjects which they study."
That's one of the only sensible things that this article says. However, the author doesn't listen to their own writing and comments on a plethora of topics, proclaiming them junk science, or making sweeping statements about CO2.
I hope the author of this article shields themselves from the awful effects of science. No new cancer drugs for you! Don't trust it!!!! No fancy shit new fangled MRI for you - you can only trust xrays as they come from old-science, and not this untrustworthy new science!
"Thanks to the intense efforts of a new generation of climate modellers, modelling capability has advanced in some instances by 12 to 36 hours, in others by several days. To extend the bounds further, the paper announced a major new research initiative, designed to bring the forecasting discipline to the 120-hour range.
Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." Moreover, he states: "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies.""
So climate modeling is the same thing as weather prediction/modeling? So, because we can't predict the weather terribly well beyond a few days, or a week, or whatever, we THEREFORE cannot predict what's going on with the climate in the longer term?
"Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change."
Is it??? Well yes. However, "Climate modeling" in the context of the article actually refers to "weather forecasting/modeling". I can't remember the last time the Komo TV weather guy told me that increased CO2 in the atmosphere *today* was going to create the warming trend that's making *tomorrow* look nice and toasty.
The article uses bait and switch tactics. It incorrectly refers to weather forecasting/modeling as "climate modeling", and then preys on the (obvious) understanding that most people have that you can't forecast the *weather* too far out. The unsuspecting member of the public now thinks that "climate modeling" can't predict more than a few days. So, therefore, climate change is bullcrap as they're trying to predict way more than a few days!!! YAY! Sigh...
Mars is warming!
Earth is warming!
Mars has no humans!
Therefore, Earth is warming without involvement from humans!
Why? The sun! It's really really hot and nobody considered it until now!!!
As with any scientific consensus, there are always outliers or minority opposition and difference of opinion. Unlike religion, science is not a belief that requires one to take an all or nothing approach. Global warming, as a theory (in the *scientific* sense of the word), is not "broken" if a small minority of climate scientists disagree.
I think RCC brought this up, but I do want to re-highlight Project Steve.
This project amusingly highlights that just because you can bring out a few scientists that agree with your opinion does not in any way make that opinion correct, or anywhere *near* the mainstream accepted consensus.
Comments
Wait a second. If the denialists are wrong about that fact, then could they be wrong about a whole bunch of other stuff too?
It seems to me that those "against" global warming are mostly armchair scientists. A few blog articles here, a couple of articles in Wired there, and you have a voice!
Recipe: Take a relatively intelligent person, tell them that scientists hate America and capitalism, inject a dose of religion and it seems that the result is someone that doesn't "believe" in global warming or evolution. Ultimately, it's a pointless debate as arguing with a fundamentalist is like trying to tell a Catholic that the cracker they just munched on is not literally the body of Jesus. In their mind, it just doesn't compute. They HAVE to be right otherwise their world view just crumbles away.
The scientific consensus is in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
How on earth someone can read that list and go against the opinion of the best scientists all over the world is beyond me. I suppose it's a conspiracy... sigh.
A little off topic, but Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything controversial. I think that may be one reason why Lamont sort of apologized for using it. He did accurately call me on a false statement though. I had not done my research by half. And I did NOT use wikipedia to come to that conclusion. His using it primed the pump though.
A lot of people have been asking for the evidence that humans are causing the warming, and what they get back doesn't answer the question, but does all too often insult their intelligence. So they start being skeptical of what the financial motivations might be for alarmist proclamations. If there were more answers and less polemics, then there wouldn't be the huge percentage of the population who remain unconvinced.
Wikipedia is ok for things that are controversial, but global warming is so far from being controversial it's just insane. The vast consensus is that it's real, it's happening, and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of it. It's kinda like the evolution thing, how proponents of "intelligent design" want to "teach the controversy of evolution". Well, sorry but there is no controversy, not among 99.9% of scientists. Climate change is not quite as universally believed, but every year that passes results in more evidence and an ever growing consensus.
I think those reading this should realize that fact. On the one side we have the vast majority of the world's climate (and other) scientists. On the other hand we have some people on some forum, sending around some links. Me personally? I'm not at all qualified to comment on climate science, so I won't. I just don't know why others that are also not qualified think they know better than the world's scientists. Robroy, why do you know better than the world's climate scientists?
Hence, my comment about it all being a "conspiracy", otherwise you couldn't possibly have any rational belief in what you're saying... You're elevating your own knowledge and experience in climate science way beyond where it is in reality.
Why do the world's climate scientists (almost) all agree that humans are a significant component of the warming, and that climate change is real and happening? Do all the world's scientists have the same political/financial motivation? Do scientists not normally ask for evidence of things they choose to believe are factually true?
The huge percentage of the population does not remain unconvinced.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250571,00.html
Yes, a Fox News article! About 80% of the American public thinks global warming exists and 79% of the American public (that believes in global warming) believes that it's either wholly or partly due to human activity.
What I think we have here, is that we have people that don't WANT to believe that global warming is real, happening, and partly/mostly our fault. If you believed that, then things might have to be done:
-Get rid of my fast car/SUV
-More expensive electricity
-Lower standard of living, perhaps (remains to be seen given technology advances)
-Nasty changes in weather, etc
Personally, I don't WANT to believe that global warming is real either! I'd love to be able to continue to drive a fast car, SUV or other gas guzzler without it affecting the atmosphere. I'd love it if coal were clean, and CO2 didn't matter, as we have tons of cheap coal in the United States.
Ultimately, I think it's likely that moving to alternative energy is going to impact our standard of living somewhat, for a period of time while the adjustment occurs. Overall, though, it's likely necessary and will help keep the planet nice for our children. And our children's children. And our children's children's children! (sorry, had to do the Monty Python reference)
And then there are those of us who really, really liked the movie Waterworld and are doing everything in our power to make it a reality.
And I'm not going to turn off my global warming doomsday device unless the UN pays me...
One MILLION Dollars!!!
HA HA HA HA HA
(See it isn't a conspiracy. Just the actions of one slightly disgruntled and ever so mad scientist. That'll teach Laura for laughing at me in fifth grade.)
And here are a few more: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
And, of course, there is this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1511
The point is, you really need to keep up with this. There is no longer a consensus, and for your information, it is one of the most controversial subjects in existence right now.
For those that don't like to read, this is VERY interesting and sort of gets to the core of this thing: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI
And more; http://youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
And for some good fun, here's George Carlin on the subject: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA
OK, so I started taking the test for dummies, and by the third question it became blatantly obvious it was a test written by dummies.
Here's the page you'll get if you answer the third question "incorrectly". According to these geniuses, the main cause of global warming is "orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output."
Now, the solar output question is legitimate and is up for scientific debate. But orbital eccentricities of the Earth?????????
In a poll a few years back, nearly have the students at (I think Harvard) thought we had seasons due to proximity to the sun. IE the earth was closer in the summer than in the winter, although in the northern hemisphere the opposite is true. I think your page came from people who must believe something similar, since orbital variations are miniscule.
I'd agree.
And it seems like there's a recipe out there to recycle very old scientific arguments over global warming like they're fresh and new. Typically if you pick an argument over global climate that was actually decided in the 1950s you can make a very plausible argument to someone who is only an armchair scientist and convince them that there is huge amounts of "doubt". The reason why it is plausible is that if it was debatable amongst scientists back in the 1950s, when we still knew a fairly fantastic amount about the world, then the average american blog reader on the internet will find it plausible.
So take the whole issue over if CO2 is a greenhouse gas. First of all you have to go back to the turn of the century and understand a bit about quantum mechanics and absorption spectra and how greenhouses work. The basic idea is that CO2 as a molecule will not absorb visible light radiation while absorbing radiation in the IR (like the glass in a greenhouse does). Now the problem is that H2O and CO2 are both greenhouse gases and if you look at the IR spectra for H2O and CO2 at standard temperature and pressure and typical concentrations on the surface you'll find that H2O is saturated and increasing the levels of CO2 won't affect IR transmissibility at all. Thus, it was thought until the 1950s that increasing levels of CO2 would not cause a greenhouse gas effect because H2O already saturated the IR.
However, in the 1950s the USAF became very concerned with the abosrption of IR in the upper atmosphere for reasons which should be obvious. What they found was that the upper atmosphere is colder, thinner and dryer. When you back off the temperature and pressure of a gas then them molecules of that gas will be moving slower and there will be less doppler shifting of the absorption lines of the molecule and the IR absorption becomes more like a fine-toothed comb rather than large bands due to the lines bleeding into each other. This means that in the upper atmosphere emission lines of CO2 and H2O do not necessarily overlap so that even when one is saturated, cranking up the other will still cause more aborption. Also, with the gas being more dry in the upper atmophere that means that H2O is less saturated. These facts then need to be combined with the understanding that if you increase the greenhouse effect at higher levels in the atmosphere it will cause heating at all lower levels of the atmosphere (analogous to throwing on a sweater). If you don't have a good intuitive grasp of physics you're probably lost at this point, and you definitely won't understand the papers where scientists have done 1d models of climate in the atmosphere where they show that CO2 actually is a greenhouse gas. It was complicated enough that it wasn't obvious to scientists in the 1950s and it remains something that climate skeptics can trot out and convince a large number of people.
Similarly, the mantra that we can't trust any computer models is a wonderful way to simply put your head in the sand and refuse to deal with a large chunk of the analysis that has been done on the global climate. What is always missing is that scuccessful models have to be able to explain our historical record which is measured in order to be successful. So, in the recent past when you introduce the pinatubo explosion in 1991 the model needs to be able to predict the observed climate response to that volcano. The models actually are tested.
However, on the other side you can take a primative climate model such as: "maybe the sun did all the forcing in the past 20 years, did you ever think of that? well did you?!?!?!?" Okay, the skeptics are actually introducing a global climate model there, that the variability in the solar forcing due to the sun's intrinsic variability (which has been well measured over the past 50 years) has been responsible for all the warming in the past 20 years. First of all you have an issue because there must be some kind of strange response lag in the solar forcing causing warming, because we know that we're currently in a solar minimum, so it must take decades for an increase in the sun's output to affect the climate and that the current minimum that we're in will result in cooling decades later. That flies in the face of everything we know about the interaction of the sun with the climate and there's no postulated mechanism to make that occur, but lets accept it. What they're proposing is a implicit strength of how much the variability in the sun affects the climate. So you can take that strength of the forcing on the climate and run the observed variability in solar output backwards and the climate model that the skeptics have proposed completely fails to predicted the observed variability. On the other hand a much smaller forcing, with no strange response lag, combined with models of volcanos explains the observed climate variability before the 1970s.
So, while on the one hand they feel free to deny the results of more complicated climate models which have been tested against historically observed climatology measures, they want us to unquestionably accept a trivially simple model of climate change due to solar forcing which is easily falsified by looking at the historical record. Unfortunately, being simple and easy to understand does not make it right, and in fact it doesn't work at all. That doesn't stop them from loudly proclaiming themselves geniuses for coming up with a possible explanation for global warming that climatologists had never considered before.
People, how dumb do you think scientists are? Do you really think they're reading skeptic blogs going "oh my god! the big fucking ball of hot gas in the sky! how did we miss that thing! rewrite all the GCM codes quick and fix it before anyone notices!" The sun is actually the *best* understood piece of this whole puzzle.
Maybe those dummies are working for NASA:
"A review article, primarily for scientists: Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to the Present (Ma is million years), by James Zachos, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas and Katharina Billups, "Science" vol 292, p. 686, 27 April 2001. Goes beyond variations due to the precession of the equinoxes and also includes variations of orbit eccentricity, inclination between spin axis and the ecliptic and in the precession cycle itself."\
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
Milankovich cycles in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the inclination angle of the Earth are actually responsible for the Ice Ages. It has a small effect, but the positive feedback effects of CO2 and other GHGs and other climate forcing factors have caused the Earth to have Ice Ages in phase with the Milankovich cycles.
One global warming skeptic argument is to point to the correlation between Ice Ages and CO2 levels and to note that the CO2 lags the changes in temperature. Which is correct, because CO2 is acting as a feedback in that case and the primary forcing is due to the Milankovich cycles. You have to have CO2 amplification, however, in order to get Ice Ages out of the Milankovich cycles. So that establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas and that increasing concentrations of CO2 will have an effect on the climate. No climate model predicts that CO2 oscillations caused the Ice Ages.
Now, given that the change in solar forcing caused by the Milankovich cycles is sufficient to cause the Ice Ages that should also establish an upper bound on the intrinsic variability of the solar forcing over the past million years, otherwise the inherent variability of the sun would washout the effect of the Milankovich cycles completely. This would be an extension of invalidating the solar forcing model of post-1980 climate change from invalidating it against modern historical records to invalidating it against paleoclimate data. So far I haven't been able to find out if anyone has done this kind of analysis, however. Clearly, though, if you turn up the intrinsic variability of the sun enough and the effect of solar forcing on the climate you should be able to invalidate that model against the historical record of the Ice Ages.
Nice!
Agreed
And this statement of yours is a prime example of saying something completely without any basis. There is a consensus. There is very little controversy in scientific circles outside of minor details which change the gross predictions very little.
You want there to be controversy and lack of consensus, but there really isn't.
You'd do better whining about how the scientific establishment is keeping all your guys down and oppression from the man is stifling open scientific debate.
In addition, I found a whole Wikipedia article about this massive controversy that is on the minds of the public and scientists on a daily basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... _consensus
It turns out that there is a pretty solid scientific consensus. Take a look at the article...
If you have some opposing youtube videos, comedian article, or books written by authors of fictional books about dinosaurs, send them my way - I'd be glad to take a look.
Is is not. Maybe in your world it is. To the MAJORITY of the rest of the world, there is a generally accepted consensus. Really, you sound *very* much like the crazy "intelligent design" proponents with their fake "controversy" and "evolution: a theory in crisis". It's uncanny.
Just because there is a vocal minority that doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus doesn't mean there is any sizable or significant controversy.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_wa ... 23_08.html
"In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today."
"In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence "substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming," compared to three out of four (74%) today."
Say it with me: consensus.
The very first argument there is bogus. Over the past million years CO2 levels have oscillated between about 200-300 ppm of CO2. We currently are in an interglacial and should have about 300 ppm of CO2, but we're currently up around 375 ppm CO2 and the historical graph looks like this:
How can you possibly claim that this looks like a normal interglacial period?
And the author is entirely correct that the Earth oscillates between a hothouse and an icehouse climate on very large scales:
More "recently" the period before the current relatively stable cycle of Ice Ages looks like this:
However, the CO2 concentrations during the hothouse phases were also on the order of 2000 ppm:
The mechanism for the recent antarctic reglaciation is also thought to be the gradual trapping of CO2 in rocks and the capture of carbon by decaying organisms on the north pole seabed. As we dig up the carbon and burn it and increase the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere we will, with certainty, also melt the poles and return the Earth to a climate that it had 50 million years ago.
However, it isn't going to be as gradual, and rapid climate change means disruption.
I'm "conservative" in that I think we should not violently experiment with the Earth's climate to see what happens if we turn up the heat by 5C. We know due to the PETM event that we'll experience a really massive extinction event, and that is probably an indication that the disruption to human life and productivity will be large. Plus we'll be leaving the planet with much less biodiversity for future generations -- although the brunt of the human suffering is likely going to be carried by the third world -- but 9/11 should have taught us that we're not isolated from what goes on everywhere else.
I send the youtube to make it fun
After all, this IS a real estate site.
I've linked to several articles and sites ranging from the silly to the very serious. You can lead a horse to water...
This is the political issue of the 21st century. The mere fact that science is being politicized should send shivers down everyones spine, especially in a world where eugenics and other dispicable belief systems have not only prevailed from time to time but even got the support of the supreme court.
Be careful what you determine to be the actual facts and, more importantly, their actual implications for the future. We really could be entering a Brave New World, and it will be on the coat tails of the Global Warming Scare.
I've posted plenty of reputable sources that have bucked the mainstream and been punished for it. Some of them even WERE part of the "consensus" at one time. The models have been proven to be seriously flawed. It is proven that CO2 is a byproduct of a warming period. This is NOT rocket science as some would have you believe. It is actually understandable by anyone with an open mind, reasonable intelligence, and a willingness to read the information. The evidence against Global Warming is legion, yet ignored, as demonstrated on this thread. The focus is on a couple of youtube videos, yet the serious links are ignored.
But the lemmings will run their course until they are all off the cliff and the rest of us will pick up the pieces. But they want to control us. Well, that takes money. And with the dire straights the entire world is facing on the economic front, it will be difficult to convince the masses to adhere to the silly restrictions the government may attempt to impose. And based on the public's opinion now on drilling for oil, it may be political suicide to force any of the "global warming" controls. We are in for very interesting times.
It is like living in a movie.
You guys have fun here. I'm off to more interesting endeavors now. I keep forgetting this is not a broad stage, but a few guys discussing around a water cooler. It's sort of a waste of time if it's not fun. The serious stuff is with the "joe sixpacks" in our country that will, with an open mind, read about the 38 shunned deniers and the other "global warming alarmists" that have wised up and come out with the truth. Their numbers slowly grow.
I think I've linked to it three or four times here but nobody has responded.
yeah, its a piece of well-understood scientific data.
(and actually the hockeystick is just the graph of the past 1,000 years, the full ice core graph that goes back nearly a million years is not the hockey stick graph, unless you've got a really beat up hockey stick -- and that one is far more interesting in establishing the historical norms over the past million years -- the hockeystick graph is just coming along for the ride there).
That one makes me cry. The total heat output of all volcanism on the earth's surface (about 0.075 W/m^3) is a tiny fraction of the 3.7W/m^3 forcing necessary to increase the earth's temperature. The sun is a much stronger force than volcanism in terms of a heat source. Volcanoes only become significant due to cooling from aerosols when you get a huge equatorial volcano like pinatubo. You might melt stuff locally right in the area of the volcano, but over all of antarctica or all of the arctic it washes out completely.
The point still stands, the ice cores establish "stable" ranges of 200-300 ppm of CO2, and our current level of 375 ppm is way out of line with our recent geological history.
Taking the most obvious example of geothermal energy -- Iceland -- has peaks of 0.3 W/m^3 from geothermal. So for localized heating having an area the size of Iceland with an extra 10% global warming vs. CO2 due to geothermal energy is plausible. That's being charitable and giving you a very large hot spot.
If geothermal was a stronger force, more nations other than Iceland would be getting significant amounts of power from it.
1) I know very little about climate science, as illustrated by Lamont's obvious knowledge and experience in this area. It's amazing just how much I don't know about the topic. I purposefully, therefore, don't *claim* to know a lot about it.
2) Most of the "so, what about X? Got ya!" points illustrated by the denialists seem to be promptly countered by Lamont (who seems to have actual experience in this area). The GW denialists probably have a much better time at dinner parties or in casual conversations with people not experienced in this area (like me) because their knowledge *seems* to be very well informed and they can reel off "facts" and studies and tidbits. It does worry me somewhat that someone who continues to be corrected on various points, continues to post links to articles/papers that might be wrong too. I mean, not all science is right! That's one of the points of science. It's falsifiable, it evolves (couldn't resist), and *eventually* a consensus is reached after enough evidence is in. That's where we're at with GW.
3) The reason I don't read a lot of the scientific papers on either side of the debate is that it's obvious that you need to have a lot of experience and/or education in the area. Robroy claims it's not rocket science, which is literally true as it's actually climate science.
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
– Nature, 8 Nov 1906, 25/2
Robroy,
The majority of scientists also believe in the laws of gravity. That doesn't make them wrong. Scientists are indeed not gods, and neither are they tooth fairies.
That link is one of the silliest web pages I've seen in a long time!!! It is stupidly simplistic, makes baseless claims, and is obviously slanted in the "science is bad - trust nobody!" direction. Some choice quotes:
"There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming."
I guess all the climate scientists are just wrong! LOL!
"Sometimes it is shear propaganda that overtakes science, as in global warming. The go-along scientists never look at the starting point; they assumed it has already been worked out. When an El Nino warms the Pacific Ocean, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, and after the El Nino, the CO2 level decreases. This shows that oceans (not human activity) control the atmospheric level of CO2, rapidly and totally."
Nice! It's so simple when you say it like that.
"Nowdays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory."
That's such nonsense. Scientists' work is peer reviewed, and other scientists verify or invalidate their results. Scientists *love* to prove other scientists wrong - it gets them better jobs sometimes, and it might even get them in some fancy journal so they can impress their other scientist pals.
"To understand what is happening in science, you have to realize that as science gets more complex, fewer scientists understand the subjects which they study."
That's one of the only sensible things that this article says. However, the author doesn't listen to their own writing and comments on a plethora of topics, proclaiming them junk science, or making sweeping statements about CO2.
I hope the author of this article shields themselves from the awful effects of science. No new cancer drugs for you! Don't trust it!!!! No fancy shit new fangled MRI for you - you can only trust xrays as they come from old-science, and not this untrustworthy new science!
Trying reading this little bit of common sense:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... ee479f&k=0
This is one more article you should read....It is titled look to Mars...It is from Notabull's link
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... c7f723&k=0
From the article:
"Thanks to the intense efforts of a new generation of climate modellers, modelling capability has advanced in some instances by 12 to 36 hours, in others by several days. To extend the bounds further, the paper announced a major new research initiative, designed to bring the forecasting discipline to the 120-hour range.
Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." Moreover, he states: "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies.""
So climate modeling is the same thing as weather prediction/modeling? So, because we can't predict the weather terribly well beyond a few days, or a week, or whatever, we THEREFORE cannot predict what's going on with the climate in the longer term?
"Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change."
Is it??? Well yes. However, "Climate modeling" in the context of the article actually refers to "weather forecasting/modeling". I can't remember the last time the Komo TV weather guy told me that increased CO2 in the atmosphere *today* was going to create the warming trend that's making *tomorrow* look nice and toasty.
The article uses bait and switch tactics. It incorrectly refers to weather forecasting/modeling as "climate modeling", and then preys on the (obvious) understanding that most people have that you can't forecast the *weather* too far out. The unsuspecting member of the public now thinks that "climate modeling" can't predict more than a few days. So, therefore, climate change is bullcrap as they're trying to predict way more than a few days!!! YAY! Sigh...
Mars is warming!
Earth is warming!
Mars has no humans!
Therefore, Earth is warming without involvement from humans!
Why? The sun! It's really really hot and nobody considered it until now!!!
As with any scientific consensus, there are always outliers or minority opposition and difference of opinion. Unlike religion, science is not a belief that requires one to take an all or nothing approach. Global warming, as a theory (in the *scientific* sense of the word), is not "broken" if a small minority of climate scientists disagree.
I think RCC brought this up, but I do want to re-highlight Project Steve.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp
This project amusingly highlights that just because you can bring out a few scientists that agree with your opinion does not in any way make that opinion correct, or anywhere *near* the mainstream accepted consensus.