A Short History of Scientific Consensus
It's Only Consensus Until Someone Proves it Wrong
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | History — Comments (159) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This week, Friday to be exact, an international group of climate scientists will unveil the executive summary of a report on global warming that will up the ante in the already contentious climate change debate. Rather than warn of impending doom from climate change at some nebulous point in the future, this report will assert that the affects of global warming are already occurring. Just as the central tenet of climate change theory has been declared unassailable as a result of the scientific consensus that under girds it, so too will this report’s conclusion that it is already too late quickly become the accepted standard when discussing remedies intended to do something about that which the report declares undoable.
In light of the release of this report, it is worth a look at other scientific ideas that attained the lofty status of consensus thought. If one looks around, the field is littered with discarded theories and textbooks are filled with the names of scientists who dared buck the consensus of the day.
Read on…
It was barely 500 years ago that all the western world was convinced that the earth was the center of the universe and all the celestial objects in the sky revolved around it. This belief was grounded as much, if not more, in Scripture as it was in actual observation. The heliocentric, or sun-centered solar system, idea was known to the west before this time, however, it was not accepted by the scientific powers of the day as anything more than a theory or a mathematical model.
This belief was first challenged with vigor by Nicolaus Copernicus, who in 1543, while on his deathbed received from the printer a copy of his masterpiece De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus, aware of the criticism his work would receive from the scientific and religious establishment held off the publication of this work, from its completion in 1530 until the year of his death The establishment and the Church considered Ptolemy’s design of a geocentric, or earth centered solar system, to be correct. In the preface to De revolutionibus, Copernicus addressed his critics thusly:
Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement [sic] on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.
It would take another 120 years from the publication of De revolutionibus, and the defenses of Kepler and Galileo for Copernicus’s work to be accepted by science and the Church.
At the time of the founding of the United States, the accepted scientific view of combustion held that all matter contained an undefined amount of a nearly weightless substance called phlogiston. Some materials, like metals, were considered rich in phlogiston, while others, like earth, were thought to be poor in it. Phlogiston theory stated that combustion released phlogiston from a material, thereby explaining the corresponding loss of weight in the remaining product.
In 1777, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier produced a paper that earned him the title of the Father of Modern Chemistry. His work demonstrated that Phlogiston theory was wrong in every respect. Lavoisier devised a set of simple experiments in which material was burned in the presence of carbon and in its absence. By measuring the difference in the resulting weights of the remaining product, he was able to show that the matter burned in the presence of carbon produced carbon dioxide (fixed air). This proved that nothing was lost in the combustion, only rearranged by the process. In the resulting paper, Lavoisier wrote:
I claim to substitute for it [Phlogiston theory] not a rigorously demonstrated theory, but only a more probable hypothesis which presents fewer contradictions…[it] explains with marvelous ease almost all of the phenomena of physics and chemistry.
Lavoisier’s work opened the door for later chemists, like John Dalton, to discover the atomic nature of matter and to understand the way in which elements combine.
As late as 1864, it was the consensus view of science that living organisms could spontaneously generate from lifeless matter. Such belief was founded on observation of phenomena in the natural world, such as the emergence of flies from rotting meat. Some scientists had flirted with the idea that a sterile broth would not give rise to bacteria if it was closed off from the air. However, the dominant view of the time was that bacteria, and even higher organisms like mice, bees, and frogs, could be produced by mixing the right objects under the right conditions.
Louis Pasteur, was skeptical of this idea and developed a simple experiment in 1864 to prove that spontaneous generation did not occur. He boiled broth in flasks and plugged the necks with cotton, allowing air in but not anything that may be carried with it. Not surprisingly to us, the flasks containing boiled broth exposed to air and matter grew bacteria, but the ones exposed to air only did not. This experiment proved that organisms found in boiled broth did not spontaneously generate from within, but were introduced from without of the flasks. Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation, in the way in which it was thought of in the 17th through 19th centuries, was wrong. In his own words:
Life is a germ, and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.
What the theories and orthodoxies that these three men disproved had in common is that they were based solely on observation and on the understanding of the time. These three who challenged the establishment did so through a new kind of science, the scientific method. They formulated a hypothesis based on observation and tested it through experimentation. The advent of the scientific method revolutionized the way in which humans learned about the natural world and is perhaps singularly responsible for the exponential increase in scientific knowledge over the past 500 years.
Today’s climate scientists, like the scientists of old, are basing their alarmist conclusions and predictions on observation and a relatively poor knowledge of the factors that affect the Earth's climate. Temperatures are increasing, human industrialization and population are increasing; therefore human activity is causing temperatures to increase. Where are the experiments to test this hypothesis? We are assured that all of the papers on global warming are “peer reviewed,” and so their conclusions are valid. But were not heliocentrism, Phlogiston theory, and spontaneous generation, all subjected to their equivalent form of peer review? Worse, today’s climate scientists cite the very existence of consensus among them as proof of the validity of their ideas. That is not science, it is indoctrination. Science is skepticism. Those brave enough to buck the modern orthodoxy and test hypotheses contrary to the accepted view are doing the only true science in this field.
Perhaps, then, it is more than ironic that the next great report on climate change will be unveiled to the world on February 2nd, Groundhog’s Day. While all the accepted scientists of the world may say that the Earth is warming itself into oblivion, Punxsutawney Phil may be alone in declaring, “Not for at least the next six weeks, it won't.”
Will a modern day Copernicus, Lavoisier, or Pastuer come along to challenge the consensus view of climate change? It is too early to say. What can be concluded is that in the history of science, consensus has often led to the emergence of a great man who proved the opposite. Just as scientists used to serve religious ends, and dissenters were silenced, today’s scientists serve political ones and heap derision on the relative few who have the temerity to object. It’s a race against time, but not for the planet. The race is to enact favored economic and political policies in the name of climate science before the next great man proves the alarmists wrong.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Liberals Don't Have a Monopoly on the Blogosphere — Comments (2) »
A Short History of Scientific Consensus 159 Comments (0 topical, 159 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
so your skepticism is a good thing. And your examples of past theories that were subsequently disproven show that science is an area where skepticism, combined with experimentation and data gathering, works pretty well to improve our understanding of the natural world.
But what I don't understand is why anyone thinks that global warming is a liberal or left-wing theory. And I can't figure out why conservatives (who should be first in line to conserve our resources) would oppose efforts to adjust policy to slow down global warming.
If you don't agree with the scientific theory of greenhouse gasses/global warming, then gather lots of data and prove it wrong. Your examples show that you will be well remembered, if you are correct.
but it isn't healthy for their careers. If you want to be labeled a crank, float a theory that contradicts a prevailing trend.
The deification of "peer review" that we see in these discussions is also alarming. If anything is stultifying to the process it is the deference peer review is accorded. While on one hand it may be said that peer review keeps bad science out, what it actually does is keeps science within definable boundaries.
This effect is especially pernicious in a quasi-science like climatology where many, if not most, factors in climate change are only partially understood and where computer modeling is substituted for controlled experiments-- and the fact that controlled experiments are not feasible does not make the use of computer models acceptable rather is just excuses bad science.
If you can't figure out why climate change is considered a left wing cause rather than science then I don't know why you bother visiting a political website.
1. The measures proposed to "fix" global warming smell of back-door international socialism (a global tax!? no thank you.) That's something that liberals would favor. And since their benefactor, the USSR, died in 1989 - this would be a perfect comeback scheme.
2. The measures proposed to "fix" global warming could put a lot of people out of work and wreck the economy (retrograde economic policy is a favorite sport of liberals)
3. That global warming is man-made is still not known. There is a very plausible notion that it has more to do with the tilt of the sun. The "we don't know, but we can't wait until we can prove it" theory is very dangerous. It led to the banning of DDT, which lead to the deaths of tens of millions of Africans from malaria. And if we'd done that in the 70s, we'd have covered the ice caps with black soot in order to melt them to combat "global cooling."
4. Many of these same (seemingly environmentalist wackos) who say that greenhouse gas emissions are the worst thing ever also do not support an alternative form of energy that actually has the capability to both meet most of the nation's energy needs and not produce greenhouse gasses - NUCLEAR ENERGY!
1. The measures proposed to "fix" global warming smell of back-door international socialism (a global tax!? no thank you.) That's something that liberals would favor. And since their benefactor, the USSR, died in 1989 - this would be a perfect comeback scheme.
>> Not if industry gets there first. See this article on the Chicago Climate Exchange - an industry supported carbon exchange set up with no government involvements. These are not weirdo leftists, the list of involved companies includes Ford, Motorola, DuPont, GE and more...
2. The measures proposed to "fix" global warming could put a lot of people out of work and wreck the economy (retrograde economic policy is a favorite sport of liberals)
>> Nonsense. See last week's Business 2.0. Also last Monday's Wall Street Journal's front page article (don't have link sorry) The fact is there are fortunes to be made addressing the problem and many companies, entrepreneurs, and employees will do very well indeed.
3. That global warming is man-made is still not known. There is a very plausible notion that it has more to do with the tilt of the sun. The "we don't know, but we can't wait until we can prove it" theory is very dangerous. It led to the banning of DDT, which lead to the deaths of tens of millions of Africans from malaria. And if we'd done that in the 70s, we'd have covered the ice caps with black soot in order to melt them to combat "global cooling."
>> Indeed we don't know exactly what the effects will be, but we do know that we're poking our planet with a big stick and causeing huge amounts of stress on its life support systems. This goes way beyond global warming (see overfishing, forestry, general pollutants, and agricultural runoff) It's just plain common sense to deal with these problems. Also, DDT was never banned in Africa (see here)
4. Many of these same (seemingly environmentalist wackos) who say that greenhouse gas emissions are the worst thing ever also do not support an alternative form of energy that actually has the capability to both meet most of the nation's energy needs and not produce greenhouse gasses - NUCLEAR ENERGY!
>>> True, nuclear may need to be a part of the solution, but frankly, using energy more effiently may be far more important, not to mention vastly more profitable. I can't find the stats but if we just got rid of most incandescent bulbs and replaced them with compact flourscent, or LEDs, we'd cease to need something like 10 nuke plants (that's not exactly the number but it was incredible)
Just my two cents.
"Where are the experiments to test this hypothesis? "
Well, like economics and astronomy, study of the climate does not lend itself to the experimental method. There is no possible way to have a control condition. These science depend on modeling. We do of course have the planet Venus which gives us some clue.
And yes, models do get discredited in science. But the process involves first anamolies that are not explained by the current model (of which I am unaware) and second a superior model that explains more observations.
Or we could just play David Hume, and discount all scientific findings based on induction. Heck, it might turn out that cigarettes really are good for you.
and do you notice that both economics and astronomy are pretty open to competing theories and schools of thought?
Given any thought to why climatology, which has no where near the academic history or heft of either astonomy or economics, seems to think there is only one answer out there: human generated global warming?
But the process involves first anamolies that are not explained by the current model (of which I am unaware) and second a superior model that explains more observations.
It's my understanding that no one has come up with a model that predicts a runaway greenhouse effect AND can explain the little ice age or the climate optimum. Has that changed?
The Hockey Stick works like gangbusters! You can even drop random numbers in it; instead of actual observations, and you'll get the exact same result. You can't get more consistant than that; without hard-wiring the temperature to absolute zero.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
There is a difference between scientific consensus and religious/superstitious axioms. The above examples are more the latter. To the extent that some people take the climate change argument, it also wanders into axiom. That usually distracts from the fact that there is scientific consensus that is based on experimentation, observation, and deduction.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
The point is that the examples given is what passed for science at the time. Sure geo-centrism was based on Scripture interpretation, as I noted in the piece.
The link to modern climate science is that observation rules the day, not experimentation. As one commenter said upthread, it is nearly impossible to design a controlled experiment to test a hypothesis about so large a system as the climate. But, that hasn't stopped today's Flat Earthers from selling the cure, has it?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
So you are saying we cannot and have not done experiments on climate? Models are based on what exactly? Obviously, we cannot create a controlled experiment of the entire system, but to say a good amount of relevant experimentation isn't being done is simply false. Models are based on experiments. Experiments show us how certain gasses displace other gasses in the atmosphere. Experiments tell us how heat trasfer can create convection and currents. Experiments tell us what the insulating effects of different composition atmospheres are.
All these experiments are the basis of a model.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
on experimentation. What you are describing is simply not one of them and is dishonest in the extreme.
For instance, econometric models are based on experimentation. They give widely varying results based on the assumption of the researchers. Same with demographics. Same with epidemiological models. How these differ from the climate models is that you won't find an economist, demographer, or epidemiologist state that their model is predictive.
So while models may have some experimental underpinning, all models are based on assumptions. That's why they are called models and not predictions. That is also why different models give differing answers.
To state that climate change is based on experimentation is just a flat out falsehood. It isn't. It is based on a house of cards of assumptions. Check the sigma on the temperature variations if you doubt it.
How these differ from the climate models is that you won't find an economist, demographer, or epidemiologist state that their model is predictive.
Are you kidding?
What is the purpose of economics if isn't trying to create predictive models?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
What I'm saying is that there is experimentation to base the models off of. It's not simply a matter of "I saw temperatures go up, therefor the globe is warming" much like the "I saw maggot on meat, therefor maggot are generated from rotting meat" that the diary likens it to. There is a good amount of solid science behind the models in the form of testing the components of the models. There is doubt in the models because all variables cannot be accounted for. But to say they haven't done any testing of the variables that are included is a lie.
Further, why the results of a model would be dismissed out of hand is beyond me. Models can be very accurate at prediction if enough variables are accounted for within the model. When we use solid modeling programs to predict the results of stress/strain on fabricated part and welds, they match up very well with tests. They match up well enough that we now trust our computer models. The same with the heat transfer of our radiators. We experiment on each new design by using a 1 sq ft core to test all the delta pressure, temp, etc. and design products with computer models based on that experiment data. The point is, models can hold up quite well.
We do test our models we create enough to trust them for prediction. With global climate, that is not really an option. So to say they are trustworthy for predition is a stretch. But to say they are not based on experimantation or science is also a stretch.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
Obviously, we cannot create a controlled experiment of the entire system
So there is no way to test the results of the models but we are supposed to accept without question the prescriptions based on their conclusions?
No thanks. I will go this far. The Earth is probably warning. No one knows what is causing it, when it will stop, how to stop it, or if it will ever stop.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
So do you propose that we just ignore climatology as a science?
With each passing year, scientists get a little better at measuring and quantifying variables. Eventually they will be able to build an accurate predictive model.
We shouldn't be doing drastic change right now. But if we were to examine small changes now it could alleviate or eliminate drastic changes later.
Then again there are so many other good reasons to go off of oil as our primary energy source, I don't know why we need to argue over this one.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
For the sake of argument and solely for the sake of argument.
Lets say that Global warming is caused by emissions from fossil fuels.
How does this imply that the solution is to cut down on the use of fossil fuels.
Everytime an agw proponent gets going on this argument their only recourse is get rid of oil.
They never ever consider promoting algae and plankton blooms to fix carbon dioxide back in the biosphere. (Est cost < 1billion/anum)
They never mention the possibility of creating sreens of water droplets to reflect more light back into space (est cos ~=1 billion/anum)
Never are any of the reasonable alternatives for dealing with temperature increase considered. If you didn't know better you might think this had nothing to do with temperature increase and everything to do with punishing SUV drivers.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I didn't actually advocate any particular change. I do think that there are MANY reasons why we should be getting away from fossil fuels as our primary energy source one of which is potential atmospheric issues that could arise.
I have no idea where you got that I want to punish SUV drivers.
Do you think it is a bad idea to move away from fossil fuels?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
On how good the alternative is. If its less disruptive to create CO2 sinks or change the reflectivity of the earth yes it would be a bad idea.
Personally I am much more worried about the glaciers starting to march than I am about pleasant winters.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I didn't ask whether you thought that moving away from fossil fuels was a good prescriptive solution for CO2 emissions.
I asked whether you think that moving away from fossil fuels, as a standalone policy, is a good idea.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
That would be at best pointless.
But to answer the question you are trying to trap me into answering.
Moving to fossil fuel alternatives is that should be solely dependent on the viability of the alternatives.
I have no trouble with funding research into alternative fuels and providing either prizes or outright grants to help the alternative fuels industry get established.
Do I think it should be a matter of public policy to force our economy to stop using fossil fuels ? No.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I didn't ask whether you thought we should implement a policy to force us to stop using fossil fuels.
I'm not trying to "trap" you into anything.
If we can agree that given the choice between using fossil fuels and using alternative fuels that are less damaging to us(environmentally, socially, politically, etc), we would ALL choose the latter, then we can at least think about what the BEST WAY to achieve that goal is.
Perhaps the best solution is to do nothing at let the market control our fates. Perhaps the best solution is drastic policy change. That is the debate we should be having.
Instead the battle seems to be fossil fuels good vs fossil fuels bad.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I like the idea of getting away from oil. But will doing so actually do any good ?
I have even bigger problems with the idea that the government should be telling me what my goals should be. This is rather implicit in the debate.
While I may like the idea of using alternate fuels I don't subscribe to the Idea that I have a right to tell other people to.
If we all felt that alternate fuels were great and better you would be amazed at how rapidly they would be adopted.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I have even bigger problems with the idea that the government should be telling me what my goals should be. This is rather implicit in the debate.
Why? The government is the collective will of the people. If we, as Americans, choose to pass laws to disincent fossil fuel use, what's the problem?
We live in a society and as such the needs of the society sometimes outweigh the will of the individual.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If we can agree that given the choice between using fossil fuels and using alternative fuels that are less damaging to us(environmentally, socially, politically, etc), we would ALL choose the latter, then we can at least think about what the BEST WAY to achieve that goal is.
We can't agree to that because you're begging the question. It's not necessarily the case that "alternative fuels" (at least the ones we know about) are "less damaging," unless you define "damage" in a tendentiously narrow way. Even if you think I'm just being disingenuous, we still can't move past this point.
And secondly, who is "we" in your statement? Americans? Or everyone in the world? Because I have to tell you that you won't be successful getting several extremely large developing nations to stop using fossil fuels until there's not a drop left. If you accept that (and you're not being real unless you do), then what's the point of answering your question as you posed it?
Well perhaps it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but I think you will be on a pretty lonely island if you wish to argue that fossil fuels are the way to go forward. Given the political costs of being dependent on oil, given the eventual exhaustion of the oil supply, given the pollution problems with oil, and given the potential long term environmental problems, I have a hard time seeing alternative solutions being worse.
As to your 2nd point, I can only influence American politics. While we can try and incentivize China or India they must act on their own to fix this problem.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Let me restate that, There is no way we can test the results of the model in the time frame needed to change the desired outcome as we would like. The models are being tested over time by observing the system.
And where did I say accept them without question? Please point it out. I'm saying they have a scientific basis and are not comparable to the examples you gave where a scientist discredited a superstitious belief.
I will say that models based on tested components can be highly accurate. I've developed such models for stress, strain, pressure, and heat transfer that accurately predicted the performance of a product without actually testing the finished product ahead of time. Our problem are much smaller than that of global climate, and not being a researcher involved, I cannot say how detailed their models are.
I do know enough to say that many small scale experiments have have been done that become parameters in the models such as the one included in the BOINC project (climatechange.net).
Since they are all coming up with similar results, I'd suspect there is some truth to what they are saying. But that's just me. But it should be plainly obvious to everyone that climate change and maggots from meat or a geocentric universe are not equivalently valid scientific theories, as you would suggest.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
Experimentation? Want to give me an example here keeping in mind that modeling really isn't experimentation.
It's not just guesswork. There are tons of small scale experiments that go into a model. You have to know how the different elements involved transfer heat, what displaces what, the refractive/radiative effects of various gasses, etc. All of these small scale experiments are used to create an accurate (as possible) climate model.
With something as large as global climate, you are right, we cannot reproduce a controlled environment to experiment on. But that does not mean there isn't experimentation to test components of the models or theories.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
something resembling the truth has emerged from your posts.
With something as large as global climate, you are right, we cannot reproduce a controlled environment to experiment on. But that does not mean there isn't experimentation to test components of the models or theories.
And therein is the point. There is no experimentation, ergo, one critical part of what is generally considered science is missing. The fact that there are tests on components may be true but meaningless unless you are continuing with your jihad against veracity.
Why do we run clinical trials for drugs in humans? Because we've tested the drugs in laboratory settings. We tested them again in variety of animals. And yet we still test them in humans because most drugs that work in the lab and on animals do not work in humans.
And why do we restrict the use of some drugs to adults? Because children tend to have different physical reactions to drugs, per se, not just the dosage, than do adults. We don't even allow a lot of the drugs to be used on women who are pregnant or who may become pregant because we know enough to know we can't predict that outcome.
But somehow climate change is given a pass on basic adherence to the scientific method on the notion that it isn't feasible. Yet the same people expect us to reorder society based on this quasi-science. It is just silly.
It's not just guesswork. There are tons of small scale experiments that go into a model. You have to know how the different elements involved transfer heat, what displaces what, the refractive/radiative effects of various gasses, etc. All of these small scale experiments are used to create an accurate (as possible) climate model.
It isn't called guesswork because they are called assumptions. Assumptions are guesses. They may be intelligent and thoughtful guesses but they are guesses. The fact that we don't know and probably can't know all the factors involved in climate patterns much less know how they are interrelated should be a real hint that the models aren't terribly useful from a public policy standpoint.
CFC (Chloro-Fluoro-Carbon compounds) were found to destroy ozone through experimentation by F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen who won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for their work. Removal of CFCs from consumer products has been shown to lessen the amount of ozone being destroyed in our upper atmosphere. And destruction of the ozone layer would have led to large shifts in our environment.
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy
Fact, the size of the ozone layer varies and has varied over time.
True, CFC were found to "destroy" ozone, to the extent that ozone can be "destroyed."
True, CFCs were removed from consumer products.
False, ergo the ozone layer was saved. Nothing of the kind has really been "shown."
According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are competing theories on the degree to which CFCs contributed to ozone depletion. And this is as it should be.
Experiments proved that human activity have changed (remove a resource, so I would still go with destroy) the ozone layer. Your competing theories link does not dispute this. I never claimed the ozone layer was saved, I said that its destruction would be lessened. Again, your link does not dispute this. The dispute you site merely concerns the levels of ozone destruction by CFCs and damage to the environment by ultra-violet radiation. You wanted an example of experimentation applied to climatology. Here you go.
As every ultraviolet ray that struck a CFC would liberate a chlorine atom that would destroy ozone molecules until it recombined with said CFC and got hit by another UV ray.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I guess that would explain the hole getting bigger this year (biggest of all time this Summer) after getting smaller in previous years. Sounds like cause and effect to me. Maybe we need to further restrict CFC usage... oh yea, that's right, we already banned it. See why this model is not at all encouraging for CO2 regulation? There's no way we can ban that, so if it isn't "working" the solution is for harsher and harsher rationing, taxes, and caps.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Or the standard model which mostly uses fill in the blank for its predictions ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I'm personally no big fan of the Global Warming (oops - Global Climate Change) crowd. I'm not a climatologist, but I know more about math and science than 90% of Americans, and what I've seen shows some things to be concerned about and a lot of factors that indicate that the sky, in fact, is not falling. There's certainly not enough evidence to justify spending trillions on a basically ineffective "solution" (Kyoto). And from what I've gathered, that seems to be the real consensus among responsible climate scientists.
That being said, I don't see how Gallileo, Copernicus, or Pasteur have much bearing on the current debate; those giants were dealing with centuries-old entrenched thinking and debating with (on the most part) other learned but hidebound thinkers. It's to be expected that, if you plan to overturn the entire body of knowledge, you'd better show up with a lot of evidence and be ready to do a lot of arguing. You don't go and rewrite the science books every time some crackpot shows up with an outrageous new theory (are you listening, Creation Science supporters?)
What we have today is a public debate on an emerging theory, in which most of the people arguing pro and con have no real understanding of either climate science or statistical analysis. This isn't a scientific debate, it's an extended commercial being run on behalf of the interconnected structure of government supported science, mass-media sensationalism, and "activism" by rich, photogenic, and gullible amateurs.
The real shame of this is that, while questions of science and engineering are eventually solved, political debate goes on forever. What will be done about global warming is what's been done about Darfur; endless debate enforced by completely ineffectual action.
For what it's worth, I'd be down with the idea of getting rid of coal-burning power plants and gas-burning cars, but only if it meant replacing them with a nuclear-based economy and cars running on hydrogen peroxide (in turn produced using nuclear-generated electricity). It's -17 (f) outside today; if you want me to give up my coal-generated electricity and natural gas, you need to offer me something that works and works today, not promises of "alternative fuels" that will magically spring from future breakthroughs if only the evil oil men in the government (cough- "Cheney") would fund the research and development.
I agree with you here:
"What will be done about global warming is what's been done about Darfur; endless debate enforced by completely ineffectual action."
Yet that ineffectual action, while completely failing to solve any climate problem, will cost us more, curtail our activity, and crimp our economy.
Here I see it differently:
"...while questions of science and engineering are eventually solved, political debate goes on forever."
Seems to me that the political debate on global warming and the scientific debate pretty much wrapped up at the same time: We have a Pottery Barn climate. The only question is how much money and how many laws. One day, I hope we will look back at Algore as the Mitch Snyder of Global Warming, and I hope that day comes before we do great harm to the world's economies.
Yep, nuclear fission is probably the only realistic way out of this in the immediate future (next 20-50 years). Solar and wind power will never be more than bit players, not because the can't be economical, but because they can't be reliable. But uranium supplies in the world are limited, and if we convert to a fission-only energy economy, we will use up world uranium reserves with 50-100 years (see Megawatts and Megatons, by Richard Garwin).
The best source of energy in the long run (for our grandchildren) is nuclear fusion, but that needs more research to attain.
Depending on the moderator, heavy water vs. light water, thorium can be used as fuel as well as U-238. If we closed the fuel cycle by reprocessing, we can use plutonium. We are not fuel limited for fission.
I think even with thorium and plutonium are used, that the estimated reserves of these things only get us through the next century or so (granted, plenty for my computer, but...). It's been a while since I read anything serious on this topic, and it's a little out of my area of expertise...
I'll worry about that when we run out of oil in 1965. Or 1975. Or 1985. That is the funny thing about reserves. As technology improves, the reserves we already know about get bigger. And it is impossible for us to have a really accurate idea what kind of reserves the world has on anything, because it is a massive place. Anyway, in 100 or 200 years we won't have much use for something as crude as fission so it hardly matters much.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I was told as a kid that Fusion power's only about 30 years away from becoming a reality. To the best of my knowledge, we're still about 30 years away from Fusion power, and I'd be willing to bet a dollar that 100 years from now, we'll be 30 years away from fusion power.
By the way, with compound interest, that dollar, adjusted for inflation, should be worth about a dollar by then.
But it will certainly be something. The technology we have today was unimaginable even 50 years ago, much less 100. Our predictions that go out decades or centuries aren't worth the paper they are written on. We predict plenty of things that never come to pass and fail to predict the stuff that changes our lives in very fundamental ways.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yes, in the near term we need to focus on nuclear and efficiency (better cars, light bulbs, refridgerators, etc). I'm also somewhat interested in cellulosic ethanol, although the technology hasn't been proven yet.
But as for the reliability of solar, its hard to imagine a more reliable source of energy than the sun. It comes up everyday and we know how many hours a day and we know about how many hours of cloud cover we can expect in a given local. The basic problem with solar is cost (too high) and storage (cost of batteries too high). Assuming that the costs associated with solar continue to drop, we could count on solar for down the road (say 30-40 years).
A big benefit of solar is that you don't lose electricity moving power over distance. This is a huge problem with any power plant (coal-fired, nuclear, etc.). Large amounts of electricity are lost moving electricity around (at least with current conducting technology). Solar cells on the roof of my house have very high efficiency. But unfortunately I can't afford them yet.
So yes, I agree, we need to go nuclear in a major way. But down the road, I'm hopeful that solar will be important, at least in certain areas.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yeah, I considered solar unreliable because roughly half the day (depending on the time of year and distance from the equator) you don't have it. Storage of electricity is still *very* inefficient, which is why we're still not seeing serious batteries. In the near term (again 20-50 years) storage isn't going to be available in any real way. You could fill half your house with batteries and not be able to store enough electricity to get yourself through a week of cloudy, stormy weather...
Solar will likely be a more important source in the future than it is now, but it will not be the major source of power any time in the near future.
is the lack of energy density, which I define as kw/ft2. This is limited by the solar constant. You can run a house on solar in a warm sunny clime (i.e. Arizona), but you are not going to run a steel mill in Pennsylvania, unless you want to cover the whole state of PA with solar cells. Solar could be a valuable supplement to the electric grid, but you are never going to power the U.S. economy with solar energy.
Just fifty years ago, the few geoscientists who believed in what was then called "Continental Drift" were called cranks by the mainstream.
In fact, as the theory that came to be known as Plate Tectonics took hold, the dissenters played a powerful role in making the theory even more robust.
If Global Warming is indeed real science, it should not be threatened by diversity of thought. Anyone who considers himself a true scientist should be alarmed at the attempts to stifle Global Warming dissenters.
You are proving the point you wish to, Mark.
The examples you provided are of scientists who fought conventional wisdom with new theories. They had to face the skeptics and prove the skeptics wrong.
If anything the Global Warming scientists fit the description of Copernicus or Pastuer since they are being tasked with proving something that goes against conventional wisdom. Just because the media and lay people have taken up their political swords over this matter doesn't change that fact.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
If anything the Global Warming scientists fit the description of Copernicus or Pastuer since they are being tasked with proving something that goes against conventional wisdom.
This is rather novel.
Are you saying that the Conventional Wisdom today is not in favor of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Is it the Global Warming proponents that have their research denied the courtesy of review by their peers? Is it the proponent of Global Warming that has his research dismissed for the funding source of his study?
Are they the ones denounced as crazy flat-Earthers and people who want to starve and poison the world?
Is this the Twilight Zone?
Are you saying that the Conventional Wisdom today is not in favor of the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming? Is it the Global Warming proponents that have their research denied the courtesy of review by their peers? Is it the proponent of Global Warming that has his research dismissed for the funding source of his study?
Are we speaking of the scientific community or society as a whole?
BTW, you have an example of Nature or Science rejecting a paper that rejects anthropogenic global warming? Just curious because I hear that EXACT same argument used by the ID gang.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
... that the skeptics of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming are the establishment, i.e. the Conventional Wisdom is on the skeptics' side.
Let's stick to it.
Does it need to be proven that anthropogenic global warming does or does not exist?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
The tide is slowly shifting towards the global warming side.
Don't confuse the media/political hype with the reality.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
You have to be joking. It's been taught as hard fact in schools for over a decade already. The debate is all about what kind of controls we should implement today to "stop" it, not over whether it exists.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Not a thing has been done about it. If the debate is only about which controls to implement, why have NO controls been implemented? We can't even get CAFE standards passed.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Not a thing has been done about it.
Except for Kyoto, you mean? I think that would qualify as "a thing," even if the US isn't party to it. I have to wonder what the vote would be on it today... it might be ratified.
why have NO controls been implemented?
Because politics doesn't move at light speed? Because the we have no basis to believe the "solutions" will do anything at all and are horrendously expensive? In any case, we will see them in this country before too long. That is as inevitable as state-run healthcare.
Just because you haven't had much luck (yet) in turning your desire for regulation into reality in this area doesn't mean human-caused global warming isn't a part of conventional wisdom. It is, and has been for years already.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm not trying to prove anything, flyer. I am simply pointing out that climate science is following a similar path to that which led to the discredited theories listed above. It could be right. I could be wrong. I don't know. But, no one else does either. And for governments to accept policy prescriptions based on shaky, at best, conclusions is folly.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Man-made global warming has been proven. So has evolution by natural selection. So have the existence of quarks. Whether the rest of us believe that they occur is largely irrelevent except in our ability to deal with them. The only difference between these three is that global warming has political ramifications that many laypeople don't want to deal with, evolution has religious overtones that many laypeople don't want to deal with and quarks have no obvious ramifications that any laypeople give a rat's ass about. These are not shaky conclusions.
GW is not proven in the same way evolution is at all. Nor is it proven the way particle physics is proven at all.
GW does not describe the past. It does not make accurate predictions. It is not falsifiable.
One of the little annoying tricks the GW promoters rely on is to get people to buy into the idea that it is well proven science. It is not.
GW is however good at being a religious faith posing as science.
It is very good at getting people to belive on faith and to ignore facts counter to the faith. In that sense, GW is much morelike creationism.
...until it can be expressed as a mathematical equation. And even then you're just playing the odds. Global warming aspires to the status of a hypothesis, let alone a theory - and, yes, I know what those two terms mean to scientists*.
Shoot, I bet you can't even tell me how we could disprove the entire thing.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*And if you feel like disputing, fine. Let's see some predictions, then.
Is that a lot of people are making a good living from it.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
because he'd probably appreciate the fact that you can prove all of his research wrong. All of his work indicates that any warming is a natural phenomenon. Hence the title of his latest book," Uncontrollable Global Warming Every 1500 Years".
Compared to the examples in the original post, global warming theory has a lot more in common with the new theories which overrode the obsolete status quo than it does with the replaced ideas. And similar to all new ideas, it is resisted by some who just don't want to believe it.
Over time, we'll learn if the warming theories are supported or countered by newly acquired data. In the meantime, the current theories provide a target for new science. So prove them wrong if you can, but past examples of new ideas replacing old theories don't do anything to tear down global warming theory, those examples actually support it.
The scientific method has been remarkably good so far at advancing our knowlege, even when fighting against the tide of opinion and social opposition. It's worked a lot better than our political system.
Share more in common with Lysenko and the piltdown man than with Copernicus, Pasteur or Darwin. I see those who are still brave enough to ask why the Emperor of GW is naked as the rather brave and thoghtful scientists.
Yep, occassionally a major model of how the world works is turned on it's ear. Relativity, evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics are all examples of this. However, the mere fact that sometimes major models are wrong is no reason to throw out a particular major model. Take for example gravity. Scientists have largely stopped debating whether or not gravity exists. They study the details of it, and how it works, but have largely stopped debating whether or not gravity explains major observations of physics. Does this mean they are closed-minded? Does it mean that there is a leftist conspiracy afoot? Nope, it means that gravity explains every observation made in this area, and that there are no major observations that don't fit within our understanding of gravity.
The same is true for climate change. Scientists have largely stopped debating whether or not climate change is happening, and that it is caused by man-made carbon emissions. They're now working out the details of how much warming we can expect, and what the consequences are going to be. Is this because they're all liberal whackos that hate capitalism? Nope. It's because all of the available observations (from ice cores, to surface temperatures to retreating glaciers to temperatures on Venus) point to one thing. There is no conspiracy here.
Scientists are the ultimate contrarians. We love to prove each other wrong. If there were data suggesting that man-made climate change were wrong, this would make someone's career. We're not lemmings that get in line behind the most important scientist. We work on the model that explains all of the data.
The only political element in all of this is what we're going to do about it, but the facts remain apolitical. Man-made global warming is happening, whether you want to believe it or not.
The Earth is probably getting warmer. There, I said it. Humans are probably not the cause. There, I said that, too. I'll believe that human activity is a potential cause of the warming that is probably going on when all the "new revelations" about that warming stop containing sentences that go something like this:
Researchers said that temperatures in the region haven't been this warm since [1,000, 2,000, 3,000] years ago...
As to the rest of your post, I believe I covered you here:
Worse, today’s climate scientists cite the very existence of consensus among them as proof of the validity of their ideas. That is not science, it is indoctrination.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
In your view, what is the difference between indoctrination and indisputable fact? There are folks in the world who think that the earth is flat (though, thankfully, relatively few). They also claim that people have been indoctrinated because no one even discusses this as a real issue any more. Seriously, how do you differentiate between closed-minded indoctrination and indisputable fact?
Consensus is not proof of validity. It's quite the opposite. Validity produces consensus. Scientists don't sit around and vote other scientists off the island. We gather data, share our data and models with other scientists, and ask for folks to prove us wrong. I spend the better part of my day trying to prove my own ideas wrong. If I fail to prove my ideas wrong, and everyone else in the scientific community fails to prove them wrong, we are left with the possibility that the ideas themselves are correct.
If after 25 years, billions of dollars, and millions of scientist hours produce only more data that supports a model, then we arrive at consensus. Of course, they could be all in on the conspiracy...
simply a very good example of group think.
The only value the present debate on GW is going to have in the future is for social scientists to use as an example of mob thinking among educated people.
GW is much closer to a religion. It is non-falsifiable. It has to be continuously re-explained when new facts counter to the prior predictions emerge. It does not explain the past at all. It relies on unprovable predicitions of the future (prophecies).
Its believers cannot brook skeptics. See how the AMS, which has nothing to do with climatology, is seeking to ban non-GW believers.
GW is an apocalyptic pop-cult. History has seen these for millenia. No one group is immune simply because of its education or brilliance, self declared or not.
We will once again this year see GW promoters scrambling to re-explain GW/climate change in the face of yet more weather that refuses to be the end of the world.
The best GW promoters can hope for is that the public actually buys into the idea that they have saved thw world when the world does not end.
The reality that the world was not going to end in weather apocalypse nor was it, will hopefully not be noticed.
the good that will be done by reducing pollution, as a by-prouct of reducing CO2, will have some good. But that good could have been realized at an order of magnitude less cost.
Most of what GW will be is higher taxes.
At its heart the politicians driving the GW hysteria are after new funding for projects they like.
Getting people to gladly pay higher taxes is the political hack's ultimate dream.
Climatologists have helped them realize that wet dream.
"GW is much closer to a religion. It is non-falsifiable. It has to be continuously re-explained when new facts counter to the prior predictions emerge."
The assertion that global warming is non-falsifiable seems to be in a fight to the death with your next sentence, which states that it "has to be continuously re-explained when new facts" appear.
First, that's exactly the way science should (and usually does) work, and exactly how religion doesn't work. You can't have it both ways. If it's not falsifiable then no counter facts will (can) appear. If they do appear, then the hypothesis is falsifiable (and out goes your previous assertion).
One thing that concerns me about this entire discussion is that it seems that the people who are so adamantly opposed to the idea of human-caused global warming are spending very little time (or more likely, none) reading the opinions (and findings) of the scientists who are devoting their careers to its study, and a lot more time arguing that what they don't want to be true, can't be true.
It wasn't that long ago that the contras were arguing that the earth wasn't warming at all. When the evidence became incontrovertible, the argument switched to humans aren't causing it.
The evidence keeps mounting, but you have to be willing to look at it, and with a little time and some googling...
Non-falsifiable means that no matter what happens, no matter how divergent from reality the predictions of Anthropogenic Global Warmists turn out to be, the results are always presented as confirming the "Consensus".
In other words, what can prove the Warmists wrong? According to the Warmists, it seems that answer is absolutely nothing. A scientific theory must be falsifiable for it to have any validity - it must be possible to prove the theory wrong.
To this day, none of the "models" that have produced the results used by Warmists (even the folks at the IPCC) to pronounce from on high that the world is doomed have passed the test of backwards predictability i.e. measure all the factors used to feed the model today and predict five years into the picture - five years later, compare reality with prediction.
I repeat, none of the models used to convince us that we are all going to die have proven themselves able to even come close to accurately predicting any reasonable length of time into the future.
One thing that concerns me about this entire discussion is that it seems that the people who are so adamantly opposed to the idea of human-caused global warming are spending very little time (or more likely, none) reading the opinions (and findings) of the scientists who are devoting their careers to its study, and a lot more time arguing that what they don't want to be true, can't be true.
What concerns me is that unlike in other fields of science, dissenters from the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory in the field of Climatology are demonized and treated like moral reprobates, denied peer review and/or publication, have their work dismissed not for the science but because their sources of funding are not politically correct.
The difference between the skeptics and the believers is really that the former take note of both sides, while the latter simply wish the other side didn't exist.
It wasn't that long ago that the contras were arguing that the earth wasn't warming at all.
Prove this.
PS: It wasn't that long ago (1970s) when we were told to sprinkle soot on glaciers and the Artic ice shelves to prevent another Ice Age. That was the "Consensus" then. It was on the cover of Newsweek.
but it seems too long to post. If you are still reading this thread, let me know if you're interested in my response.
In that the people who are supporting AGW spend absolutely zero time reading anything that contradicts their belief. On the recent threads here you can see people being presented to logical obstacles to their positions on AGW, and the response is akin to water being shed from a duck.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I "support" (a strange way to put it) AGW, and I've read a considerable amount generated by the other side. Therefore, your
contention (hypothesis?) is "falsified."
Have I offended you?
Re: My use of the collective: I am able to speak about the scientific method. I am able to speak about the building of consensus among scientists. I am able to speak to the idea that there is a conspiracy (or group think) among scientists. I am able to speak about the sociology of scientists.
In terms of my knowledge about climatology, it is poor, I will grant you that (though I suspect it is better than most). Though if expertise on climate change were a requirement to speak on this issue, I guarantee you that the "debate" would be much quieter if this were a requirement to speak. In fact, I think this whole blog entry would be rather empty. That said, my poor understanding of climatology is garnered from me following this issue casually in the scientific literature (that's one of the bonuses of being a scientist, easy access to the literature).
Since we are talking about predictive modeling, the models either show themselves to be accurate or not. If a model shows itself to be accurate then it is added to the general theory and built upon. If the model fails then it is analyzed to determine why it failed.
Is meteorology a science?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Is meteorology a science?
If you lived in New England you would know the answer to that one already, flyerhawk.
But to your point, if time falsifies GW (and it need not be the only way, but anyway), then why don't we get a couple of years - say 10-15, a mere blip on the geological scale - of consistent correct predictions from the GW models before we start slamming the brakes on CO2 emissions.
And while that's going on, we spend some money figuring out ways that we can maintain our quality of life while not pumping tons of krap into the atmosphere.
Deal? I mean, that sounds like a win-win to me.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Sorry about that. Inadvertently hit the return key.
Anyway, I'm not advocating that we implement significant and potentially calamitous change.
And I agree with this...
And while that's going on, we spend some money figuring out ways that we can maintain our quality of life while not pumping tons of krap into the atmosphere.
I think that is the prudent path.
Instead we have two groups of people. The sky is falling partisans looking to make hay out of this and force severe policy changes on our nation that are not necessary and will cause far greater harm than good. And we have the head in the sand partisans who cover their ears whenever the words global warming are mentioned. They kneejerk to a do nothing posture that makes reasonable discussion about the issue impossible.
Personally I am not fully convinced of AGW, however the evidence continues to mount in favor of this theory. I suspect in 10 years we will have definitive evidence regarding this matter. So, for me, I think that planning now is a good idea but actual policy changes of significance are probably not necessary for the time being.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
There's nothing you've said with which I disagree, though I quibble with the following:
1) evidence continues to mount in favor of this theory
2) I suspect in 10 years we will have definitive evidence regarding this matter
There's also plenty of "mounting evidence" opposed - it just gets blown-off. And I suspect we'll be no further along 10-years from now than we are today.
Look, it makes sense that you cannot pump crap into the atmosphere (or lakes, or woodlands, or ...) without consequences. So it further makes sense to try to limit said activity. But pooping in a hole in the backyard has "consequences" too - I just wish the AGW cultists would remember that when they propose restructuring our entire means of energy production and transportation because their models say so.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
There's also plenty of "mounting evidence" opposed - it just gets blown-off. And I suspect we'll be no further along 10-years from now than we are today.
Ok. I asked for this upthread but could you point to the papers that are blown-off that are written by non-political scientists?
I realize there is some papers like this but they are in the distinct minority. And unless you have evidence that Science and Nature have willfully chosen to blackball the anti-AGW people, I think your claim that it is being blown off to be nothing more than hyperbole.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I'm too busy venting my spleen at the freaking useless GOP House caucus on another site at the moment (and I won't be done for a while because right now I'd rate the text at NC-17 so it's going to take a while to get it down to at least PG) to do a proper job on this one.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Why do Science and Nature keep popping up in these debates? Science and Nature are general science journals and as such I would expect the results presented therein to be somewhat watered down. I doubt that a trained biologist would be able to follow a rigorous physics paper or vice-versa.
Are there no journals that are specifically for climatology, journals that I would expect would be more rigorous and more illustrative of the prevailing scientific opinion than Science or Nature?
I just keep seeing all sorts of references to Science and Nature but have yet to see any reference to a journal that is specific to climatology.
The are the most well-known examples of the type of journals we are talking about.
Certainly climate-specific scientific journals are more relevant.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Here's a story in the Daily Telegraph.
Letters to Science Magazine...
Professor Dennis Bray is a social anthropologist.
On his home page he has the following papers..
As for the article let's see what Tim Lambert has to say about this.....
Is global warming skepticism amongst climate scientists as widespread as this survey indicates? To answer this we need to look at how the sampling was conducted:
The 2003 survey was conducted as an on-line survey. The existence of the survey was posted in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the Climlist server, and was sent to institutional lists in Germany Denmark and the U.K. As an effort to prevent general access to the survey, the survey was password protected. The password was contained in the informative message distributed according to the above.
However, the information about the survey was reposted (mail list membership required to read link) to the climatesceptics mail list by Timo Hämeranta on Sep 20 2003: (my emphasis)
Now perhaps you feel that an online survey meets the rigorous standards that Science generally applies to submitted works. I don't, since I understand the pitfalls of online surveys particularly ones that don't track identity. But the fact that the survey was sent to a mailing list called climatesceptics certainly should raise cause for concern, no? Would you sent out a poll on Republican voting tendencies to the the DNC mailing list?
And the reason why I give the AGW crowd more credence is that it seems that the vast majority of the skeptics are either lay people or scientists that work in other fields that are trying to push their skepticism using their Dr. title to lend credibility to their skepticism.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I've had papers rejected by Science *and* Nature. It's probably a conspiracy against my grand ideas... It couldn't be anything else, could it?
It's probably a conspiracy against my grand ideas.
There are other sites on the World Wide Web for indulging one's paranoia y'know ...
A lack of knowledge concerning the tools of your trade thats not surprising. Of course that is assuming you weren't trying to slip a couple past the ignorant AGW deniers.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves and I'm sympathetic to a point that Loren (Socrates) made in the other thread (the "in the internet age they should be able to get their message out) - so instead of trying to prove a negative (as I believe AGW can be neither "proved" nor "disproved" in the litteral sense), how I'll rephrase that statement is to say that anyone who points skeptically at the "science" of AGW is written-off as a hack of Big Oil.
And if you're looking for skeptics, I usually start with this and move to someone who thinks the AGW folks are missing something big and always check with these folks after reading the latest scare piece in the Globe.
Now, I know you're not going to like these - particularly Milloy's site - but they read just as convincingly as anything I've seen in Science and Nature on the pro-AGW side. And that's the point, isn't it?
Have fun. Out.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Those sites are written for lay people and hardly can be compared to work published in Science or Nature, unless you simply reject the notion that climatologists know more about our climate that Joe Sixpack.
There are plenty of skeptics of AGW. However there aren't nearly as many TRAINED skeptics of AGW. And by trained I don't mean they are doctors of anthropology or political science.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
at least one of my links.
Though perhaps I'm not effectively making my point that the total and complete lack of skepticism found in any piece in Science, Nature or the NY Times on this subject is, well, a problem unto itself.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Well I would agree perhaps with the New York Times, I'm not sure that Science or Nature should be publishing works that are simply colorful skepticism with footnotes.
Scientific journals are intended to produce scientific research. The skepticism comes from the rebuttals from the scientific community.
Since I read neither Nature or Science, much less Atmospheric journals, I can't speak to any alleged bias they have.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Science (I don't subscribe, but read occasionally) and Nature (I used to subscribe) are all too quick to publish works that are simply colorful conventional wisdom with footnotes.
They are guilty not so much of bias as they are of presenting conventional wisdom couched in phrases like "the science on (fill in the blank) is settled!"
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
I'm asking what evidence will be accepted by climate change proponents as being proof that anthrogenic global warming is not taking place. If they're not at a stage where they can make simple, declarative statements about what that'd entail, well. Back to the labs with them.
This is my tax money that people want to spend, you know. I'd rather not have it spent on something that turned out to be a religious obsession.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
What you are looking for. Right now there is significant evidence to support AGW. As we build better models we can get a better idea of what that means and how it will impact us. It could turn out to be beneficial to us, for all we know.
But I don't know what you want in regards to evidence that AGW is not taking place. Either we can prove that AGW does exist or we can't. Implicitly we assume that it does not exist and that our weather operates the way it will operates based on its own chaotic rules
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
time to change the subject.
Follow the history of apocalypse cults. When the Jehovah's Witnesses saw the mid 1970's pass with no armageddon, they simply stopped tlaking about it and rewrote their old books that predicted the mid-70's as the end of the world.
When that 19th century guy in the midwest who predicted the rapture and sold the special robes was proven wrong, he simply moved oon (after his second go at it).
Hal Lindsay is still alive and wellon planet earth, selling more swill.
algore will land on his feet and find some other windmill to tilt against.
Is for me to say you need to pour CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ridiculous rates and show that the earth doesn't heat up (and to do the control with an identical planet).
I follow some creationism (pardon me, *intelligent design*) blogs, and they ask the same thing. "Show me evolution in a test tube." "Make me a zebra out of a bacterium." "Show me the primate ancestors of humans".
Sometimes we can't do the experiment we'd like to do, and have to settle for the experiments we can do. For example, no one has ever "seen" that DNA is a double-helix. Fact of the matter is, the wavelength of visible light is too large for us to ever see something that small, even with the best optics in the world. So we do the next best thing, and look at X-ray diffraction patterns of the crystals (and myriad other experiments) and every experiment we do points to DNA taking on the confirmation of a double helix (unless you do something wacky to it).
Sometimes a theory, model or hypothesis cannot be proven by a single experiment. But it can be disproven by one.
But I digress... The way you falsify something like anthropogenic global warming, is that you show despite the fact that CO2 levels are increasing, that glacial ice is increasing in size. You show that the average temperature of the earth is cooling. You show that CO2 in fact doesn't have heat-trapping qualities in closed system experiments. The fact of the matter is that it's not just climatologists who are seeing evidence of global warming. Do you think that no one has been trying to disprove this? Scientists have spent the last 30 years trying to disprove it. If someone were to come forward with credible evidence that global warming were caused by sunspots, and the only way to protect us from that would be to burn more coal, that would be a *huge* finding that would make that person an instant scientific celebrity (sadly for us, scientific celebrity doesn't translate well into the rest of the world). But the truth is, that mountains of evidence point in the direction that man-made global warming is an issue (and a major one).
Thankfully, even many political figures are finally deciding that something needs to be done. The real questions we should be asking here are what to do about it. And there are essentially 2 choices: 1) Do something now to ensure that it isn't as bad as it could be (i.e. carbon sequestration, decreased use of fossil fuels, etc). 2) Do nothing now, and live with the consequences later. (i.e. rising sea levels, decreased flow of the Gulf Stream, etc).
is that you hold the predictions up to scrutiny. when they claim there will be more hurricanes and record hot summers and they are wrong (like they were) you make them lose credibility. Instead the pop-press and promoters simply expalined it away and redoubled their efforts to shut down those who dare question.
You also force the model to explain why the same things happened in the past pre-tech. GW does not.
The earth is already pouring more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere than we are. We already know that this theroy is full of bunk. But it is sweet politics, so it goes forward. ends justfies means and all of that.
smack political agenda, rather than scientific interest and knowledge in the subject.
Concerning hurricanes, you really should take a minute and read this:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
This represents scientists speaking and they are not responsible for what the media report. One of the beauties of this report is that it is couched in typical scientific language -- cautious, qualified, and restrained. It is not filled with bold, empty assertions. And no one assumes it is the last word.
As "for record hot summers," 2005 was the hottest year on record, until 2006, which was, apparently, hotter still. There will always be someone sitting in a snowstorm in June who will think that somehow a local weather event, disproves a global pattern or trend. If you really want to know about temperatures and warming trends, a little googling will get you lots of data based on actual measurements, rather than suppositions based on wishful thinking.
And it looks like you are out falsify your earlier statement.
Or perhaps you bothered to read but not actually understand
tropospheric temps for the last 27 years here
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Thanks for the graph. Now, I'm sure the planet is cooling. That's what all that recent red means, right?
From your link:
"Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the satellite data shows a warming trend of about half of this. These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface."
Two comments.
First, it appears from this graph (and the text) that temperatures down here on Earth are indeed warming significantly.
Second, and this is the reason I quoted more than just the first sentence, this is typical of scientific discourse -- open discussion of anomalies and things that need to be better understood. No hidden political agenda, no bold, unsubstantiated assertions.
2005 warmest year in over a century:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm
Please note from the first link that the hottest five years in the past century were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Was 2005 really hotter than 1998? It looks like some think so and some don't agree. Who’s right? Who cares. It sounds like 2006 will prove to be a contender, as well.
2006 warmest year (in US...sorry) in the past 112 years:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR200701...
And those poor, freezing Scots:
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=41612007
The headline should get someone fired (although it's kind of funny), and reflects the difference between (much of) the media and (most) scientists. It's a bad idea, based on my experience, to ever blame scientists (or anyone) for what the media report.
I don't consider any single source necessarily definitive, and all could be subject to later adjustment or revision. I'm interested in trends, not absolute records. The system is obviously very complex -- with other influences and variables apart from CO2 concentrations -- which is why (strong El Nino), according to NASA, 1998 was so hot. However, 2005 may have been hotter than 1998 without being a strong El Nino year. Or it wasn't. It doesn't really matter.
And it looks like they're freezing down under too:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/200601...
Wow, some are expecting 2007 to be the hottest yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm
...an eventuality on which I would bet absolutely nothing, and should it fail to materialize will be instantaneously used as proof that...well, you know the drill.
Don't know how you took away the idea that planet was cooling. Don't even know where anyone argued here the planet was cooling.
Heres a piece from the WMO that paints a more readable picture
Sorry for having to take it from investors.com all I could find at the WMO was tabular data.
If human emitted CO2 is the primary cause of GW wouldn't you expect the graph to have a more linear fit ?
It seems I didn't manage to communicate my position properly.
GW is happening there is plenty of evidence for this/
AGW is at best questionable. The models are incomplete, the measurements don't agree with each other, and the prediction they make just don't seem to happen.
There still need to be proved that GW is a bad thing. For cold places its almost definitely a plus.
Hope that clarifies things.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Joliphant wrote:
"Don't know how you took away the idea that planet was cooling. Don't even know where anyone argued here the planet was cooling."
I suppose I should have suspected that irony would be lost on you: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=irony
And the rest of my post (I thought) made it clear that I don't think the planet is cooling.
Joliphant wrote:
"If human emitted CO2 is the primary cause of GW wouldn't you expect the graph to have a more linear fit?"
Simply put...no. I wouldn't necessarily think that anything in a system as complex as global climate would be consistently linear. And I can't imagine why anyone would think so, unless he or she had an agenda. Nineteen ninety-eight popped up as the warmest year on record, but then the following years (at least until 2005) were not as warm. Big "non-linear" anomaly? Not necessarily. As I said in my post, there are lots of variables, and things like El Nino exist to complicate the mix.
Joliphant wrote:
"AGW is at best questionable. The models are incomplete, the measurements don't agree with each other, and the prediction they make just don't seem to happen."
Your statement appears (strong understatement)to be at odds with the latest (yesterday) IPCC report (readily available). Despite the need to find consensus among political and scientific entities, the report called AGW at least a 90% likelihood. As I've pointed out before, responsible scientists seldom, if ever, speak in absolutes (most are smart enough to know that there could be a rude surprise out there somewhere, even if the chances are small...and growing smaller), so a 90% degree of confidence is decidedly high and in stark contrast to your characterization. Note: it would also be helpful if you stopped using the word "prediction," because that isn't what is being made. The word is projection.
If a team of eminent oncologists told you that the evidence revealed a better than 90% likelihood that you have cancer, I imagine you'd be worried. So, worried you might want to do something about it...just in case. Or if a group of experts told you that your house, built on a bluff overlooking the ocean, had a greater than 90% likelihood of sliding into the sea in the next severe rainy season, you might want to take them seriously. Then again, maybe you wouldn't. People with emphysema and lung cancer do continue to smoke even after the "likelihood" reaches certainty. Of course, one of the problems with global warming is that most people alive today are pretty sure that they won't be the ones who will have to deal with its worst consequences.
From the IPCC report:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since (footnote 7)
the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, ..." (page 3)
Footnote 7 says:
"In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgments on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct." (page 3)
Now, you don't have to read the report, or believe it, or believe that the scientists who contributed to it are honest, or competent, or not part of some nefarious plot, but there really is no point in constantly repeating the refrain -- data don't fit; predictions don't happen -- because that is clearly not the strong scientific consensus.
Joliphant wrote:
"There still need to be proved that GW is a bad thing. For cold places its almost definitely a plus."
This is the kind of naive, ill-considered, snap judgment that is unwarranted and dangerous. For example, European ski areas, should they face the virtual disappearance of snow, would not consider the change a plus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6185345.stm
Native people living in the artic might take exception to your characterization.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR200603...
Once again, a little googling will turn up lots of fodder for your consideration. Further, since the system is so complex, warmer temperatures aren't likely to appear alone, and other changes, like dramatic increases or decreases in precipitation could have deleterious effects on agriculture and other economic activities. The possibilities are many and not necessarily immmediately apparent. But one thing is virtually certain: we shouldn't be surprised by surprises.
The other problem with your statement is its apparent implication that it might be okay for the "cold places" to contribute the CO2, because they'll benefit, while the "warm places" get to suffer the effects. That would mean that if Russia decided it was, on balance, going to benefit from warming (lots of ice free ports!), it might be smart economically to form alliances with other "cold places" to try to exacerbate warming as much as possible, regardless of what effects that had on warmer places. Many might consider such behavior an act of war. And some of those warmer places, are already having serious problems:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/368892.stm
Again, a little thoughtful googling turns up endless reports of real and potential problems -- some of them less obvious than others.
I've had my say. Have a nice weekend.
You know I am still not certain are you saying the planet is warming or cooling ?
I'll just take it as read that you are saying its warming.
I just have to ask though if its man made why was the earth just as warm prior to the little ice age, and the when romans conquered Britain ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Joliphant wrote:
"You know I am still not certain are you saying the planet is warming or cooling ?"
I'll humor you one more time. From post #82:
"I 'support' (a strange way to put it) AGW..."
Apart from all of the other places where I've made my position clear, this should have been sufficient.
Now, on to other pursuits. Again, have a nice weekend. Bye.
And Heat transport is something I only studied part time for about 6 months nearly quite awhile ago. So I undoubtedly cant bring the insight to the model you can.
But as I understand the model atmospheric CO2 blocks the radiation of infrared energy. In effect the atmospheres becomes more opaque to infrared light. This has raised the temperature of the earth by nearly one degree with better than half of it in the last 30 years.
So over that time period the temperature should be nearly a full tenth of a degree above where it was a decade ago.Given that just what incredibly large global fluctuations have depressed the temperature every year for the last ten years ? And just what was the event that caused 1998 to be so hot ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Your statement appears (strong understatement)to be at odds with the latest (yesterday) IPCC report (readily available). Despite the need to find consensus among political and scientific entities, the report called AGW at least a 90% likelihood.
(emphasis mine)
Where is the IPCC Working Group 1 report readily available?
What was released yesterday (and is readily available) was the Summary For
Policymakers and not the report itself. In fact the report itself won't be available for at least a few months so that there will be time to make the report consistent with the summary.
The only thing I've found even resembling the actual report is a leaked draft at junkscience.com.
So I ask you again where is this report readily available?
But I digress... The way you falsify something like anthropogenic global warming, is that you show despite the fact that CO2 levels are increasing, that glacial ice is increasing in size.
This is the problem with dealing with global warming cultists (not you in particular, but the generic garden variety)
They start with the assumption that they are correct and everything that they observe is then explained through the lens of global warming.
So now we know that you fibbed to us. If glaciers grow and average temperatures (by the way do you have any idea how utterly silly it is to talk about average global temperatures? It is really a meaningless term) drop they are the result of global warming and not indicators that the climate is fairly unpredictable.
You know, when you say things like this...
pour CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ridiculous rates and
... you give away the game. What, precisely, makes these "ridiculous" rates of emissions?
But as to your examples:
1) Glacial ice - only CO2-based global warming causes ice fluctuations? That would be a big surprise to anyone who has studied the Ice Ages.
2) Average temperature of the earth - uh, you know that's a really, really, really hard number to quantify, right?
3) CO2 - well, almost everyone knows that "CO2 in fact (does) have heat-trapping qualities in closed system experiments", but are you so certain we're dealing with a closed system? I mean, is it impossible for anything to escape from the "ozone hole", just as an example?
And sure, there have been plenty of people trying to disprove the "theory" of GW - and almost all of them are written off as being in the pockets of Big Oil™ and the like. Government research money has been almost singularly focused on the pro-GW side of the ledger since the threat of Global Cooling was all the rage.
It's the path of least resistance. If you want your research funded then it's best to have a proposal that lines up best with the conventional wisdom. Or have you never attempted to get your reseaerch funded?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
Two problems here. One, that doesn't show double helix, just a strand of DNA. Two, those "pictures" are taken by bouncing electrons off of the surface of a sample that has been treated with several chemicals. You are not seeing it at all, but rather seeing the data gathered by a machine that is interpreting electron paths. An electron microscope is not really a microscope in the sense that you get to "see" anything. You don't get to see anything, you get to see the map of electron scattering interpreted by the machine you are using. No light involved.
Or, it's a conspiracy of closed-minded scientists to perpetuate a model that DNA exists...
Your statement is that an electron micrograph is less valid than the image obtained from bouncing photons off a sample ?
Second thats not an electron micrograph.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Oh I wasn't going to mention this. I feel I have been having too negative an approach to these debates of late and needed to be nicer to people I disagree with.
But seeing as you have chosen to make a fuss over this. You also got your imaging physics wrong. In that you can use light to make images at resolutions smaller than the actual wavelength of the photons used.
http://www.physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/nsom/nsom.html
Perhaps its a conspiracy by the NIST to make you look silly ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
...is you to tell me what evidence would be necessary to satisfy you that anthrogenic global warming is not happening.
Which you still have not done. You are instead working from the base assumption that whatever warming is going on is of course due to human activity. I will grant that there are people who dispute that there is any warming at all: I'm not one, particularly, but that's due to a frankly gut instinct, not a scientific one. That still doesn't let you off of the hook. It's still not a theory, still not even a hypothesis: and until you guys come up with either that works, throw your own darn money at the question. :)
I'm also someone who asks exactly the same questions about falsibility to ID proponents. You may want to consider the implications of that for a while.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The way you falsify something like anthropogenic global warming, is that you show despite the fact that CO2 levels are increasing, that glacial ice is increasing in size. You show that the average temperature of the earth is cooling. You show that CO2 in fact doesn't have heat-trapping qualities in closed system experiments.
1. If the temperature is increasing, the ice sheets will get smaller. That doesn't prove that increasing CO2 levels are the cause, and it doesn't prove that the warming is anthropogenic.
2. If the temperature is going up, the earth isn't cooling. That doesn't prove that increasing CO2 levels are the cause, and it doesn't prove that the warming in anthropogenic.
3. CO2 in a closed experiment will cause warming, but it's also possible to set up a closed experiment that demonstrates that oxygen is poisonous. There are a lot of other effects in the atmosphere that don't take place in a dewar flask.
The most responsible statement I've heard from a scientific source (again, I'm not climatologist but I'm also no stranger to scientific methods and statistical analysis) is that the global temperature has "the appearance of anomolous warming". That doesn't translate into "if we don't let everyone above lattitude 45 freeze to death, we're all going to die".
There are plenty of examples to date of well-intentioned "fixes" to environmental problems that went very much astray. The responsible thing to do at this point is to continue to gather data and to do NOTHING until (a) there's a working climate model that predicts horrible consequences of global warming AND can explain the fact that 600 years ago English wine was flooding the French market, and (b) we have enough data to show that the "fix" is, as they say in the medical industry, "safe and effective" (notice that's an "and").
And of course as a scientist you can speak about science and science culture. Many here have studied the scientific method.
I just got off of another rather heated discussion regarding GW, and carried some of the heat over here.
I would posit that if wokers in your field made as many unsupported claims and spent as much time defending their bad predicitons as do GW promoters, you would not put much faith in them.
I also bet that if yuou found your area of science being highjacked by politicians using your work to gain power you would not be pleased either.
Climatologists, I submit, are out on the end of a long shaky limb. This is almost exactly like the claims of the nuclear winter promoters, who were proven wrong when they tried to make specific predictions after the Gulf War. This is also like the predictions of the ice age that were prevalent in the late 1970's (and which GW promoters poretend never happened.) In fact, scientific consensus being proven wrong regarding climate is an old and well established popular entertainment. this is simply the latest and most wide spread.
My premise is this:
History has shown us time and time again that groups get caught up in apocalyptic beliefs. these groups exist regardless of education, theistic belief or station in life. These fear cults have a natural life cycle. The idea of GW being driven by man into a global disaster is an example of this type of fear cult. the cycle of this one peaked last year with the silly claims and predictions about hurricanes. The momentum of the movement will carry it forward another year or two. The promoters of GW will be forced to make more and more wild weather predictions that will be wrong. The cult will fall apart when another diversion can grasp the attention of the public. The believers will wander off. The promoters will change the subject. The taxes put in place to 'combat' GW will stay in place.
The world will not end.
This is specific, unlike GW. It is falsfiable, unlike GW. It is based on models of the past, unlike GW. It makes predictions about the future that can be falsified, unlike GW.
If climatologists suddenly start being able to predict the weather, I can be proven wrong.
As I noted in another part of this thread, I spend some time reading creationist blogs, which relates directly to my work. Evolution by natural selection is the single most amazing idea in biology, and *everything* that study makes sense in the light of it. Nonetheless, religious folk are offended by the idea and spend an awful lot of energy arguing that there is nothing that *proves* evolution took place. It's true, no one has watched the successive generations that took place to make zebras from bacteria. Nonetheless, all the evidence left behind suggests that something rather like that took place (or rather, that bacteria and zebras share a common ancestor).
The same is true for man-made global warming. I read outside of my field - alot - after all, I'm here at a political blog today - when I should be reading something more relevant to my work - what can I say, I am interested in just about everything. Every week, I see something new in the generalist scientific journals that we receive, that is yet another piece of proof. There is no one experiment that says, "aha!" this is what is taking place. I think that one experiment would make it a lot easier for lay folks to buy into the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and evolution for that matter). But that's not the way science works.
Often it only takes one experiment to disprove an idea, but it takes many to prove it. There is literally a mountain of evidence supporting global warming. Anthropogenic global warming stopped being controversial among scientists 20 years ago, and the evidence is still pouring in. There will never be an aha! moment. Even 100 years from now, when the average temperature of the earth has increased by 10 degrees (or more or less, depending on your favourite estimate - and for folks who think this is evidence that this is a bullshit science, all the work I do has error bars on it too). Even 100 years from now, we'll have someone say, "damn it's cold today, that global warming can't be happening". There is no "aha!" moment here. It's all about the preponderance of evidence pointing towards one conclusion. This isn't some fly-by-night issue of two or three meteorologists coming up with an idea over a beer. This is an idea supported by ridiculous quantities of data.
In a final point to hunter, keep in mind that prediction of tomorrow's weather is a far cry from predicting climate change. I can predict that 1 in 10,000 of the cells I used today for a particular experiment are going to do what I want them to, even if I don't know which one...
keep in mind that prediction of tomorrow's weather is a far cry from predicting climate change.
On the one hand you have a sophisticated network of weather satellites, observation stations, reports from airline pilots, radar imaging, etc. On the other you have "models".
The difference being that meterologists don't want us to restructure society based on their forecasts.
Either that or you're intentionally twisting my words. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, as so far this seems to be a fairly civil debate.
The point I'm trying to make is that in many ways it's easier to predict climate than it is to predict temperature. It's easier to predict what you'll get *on average* than it is to predict what you'll get at any particular point in time. It's the reason we can't predict the temperature acurately more than a couple days out (though several weather companies pretend they can, they really can't).
As I stated, in my own work, I can predict how often I'll see a cell do a particular event, even if I can't predict *which* cell will do it.
Works as long as you ignore the cases where its not happening.
You should be able to think of at least one species where it doesn't happen.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
...that humans aren't subject to evolution by natural selection? This isn't the place for this, so I won't follow up on this, but you are gravely mistaken if you think so...
or any of the cereal grains as examples of species that are undergoing intelligent design.
The human race is undergoing Lamarckian evolution and thats a different story.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Your '10 degree' comment is ridiculous and you would know it if you were as well read as you pose.
My point about weather prediction is exactly right.
Climatologists, to preserve their credibility in the face of being wrong, will continue to make weather predictions.
They will continue to be wrong.
Climatologists have no business trying to predict weather, but here they are.
And when you read what they actually say today, they are aware that they have over hyped themselves and are trying to back down.
I think 3-10 is the IPCC estimate, though that is made using estimates from several different groups, some higher than that. Anyway, I used the high end to make a point, that even after a 10F average change, we will still get cold days that will make some lay folks say, "Global warming isn't happening".
I used a word that refers to bovine excrement. I wasn't aware that wasn't allowed, and will refrain from it in the future.
that you do not even address my assertion.
Is that becasue you agree with it or simply seek to ignore it?
I've been replying to various assertions of various authors. I think the one you'd like me to reply to is your assertion that the world won't end?
I agree. The world won't end. It will get more complicated, and warmer, and there will be consequences that we will have to deal with. But we will deal with them, now or later.
You'd like me to address your assertion that folks who think global warming is occurring are akin to a doomsday cult? I try (not always successfully) but I try not to make generalizations about large groups of folks (cue someone pointing out a generalization I made earlier in the thread). That said, I think there are folks who are doomsdayish. Take the folks at Greenpeace for example (no please, take them!). They constitute a bunch of doomsdayers who have largely lost any credibility they ever had (did they ever have any?) because they keep saying the world is going to end. Take David Suzuki (please, take him!). He's another one who points to global warming destroying the world. I suspect Al Gore is another member of the cult (though I confess, I haven't seen his movie - though I suspect no one else here has either). I'll reserve judgement until I see the movie. Oh who am I kidding, I don't have any inclination to watch it.
However, the fact that there are fringe lunatics that have found religion in an idea that has been proven by a large community of scientists doesn't discredit the science. I am not responsible for what other people say. I am not responsible for folks who agree with me on a few issues.
There, did I address the right assertions? Or did I miss one?
I agree. The world won't end. It will get more complicated, and warmer, and there will be consequences that we will have to deal with. But we will deal with them, now or later.
If you are happy to take a wait and see outlook and attempt to address problems later (if they ever occur), then I don't see a basis for disagreement. If you are a proponent of government intervention, OTOH, that is where we have a problem. I couldn't really care less what kind of doomsday scenarios people want to push, so long as it doesn't interfere with my business. If you tell me we have to start rationing power or you need to confiscate more of my paycheck to solve a problem that may or may not occur and may or may not be negative with solutions that may or may not do anything, that is where I have a real problem.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Fixing the problem now will be slightly painful, and require some technological and political fixes.
Fixing the problem later will be *much* more expensive, and I'm not the kind of guy who likes to hand off problems that I've created to my children.
No one on the AGW side has shown it actually is a problem and not a blessing.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
until this year. Two or three great summers in a row, long periods of sunny days with temps in the 70s and even low 80s, even used the swim step on my boat for its intended purpose once. This year, we had 80 inches of snow in November alone, I can hardly remember seeing the Sun, and I haven't seen bare ground since October.
Obviously, I haven't lived long enough to really observe climate, but because I grew up farming and now have a boat, I have a fairly accutely attuned weather eye. I have noticed that some years the ocean and atmospheric currents are such that the jet stream is to the South of me and I get clear, warm summers and clear, cold winters punctuated by powerful storms. Other years, the jet stream is to the north of me and I get a Pacific maritime pattern of relatively warm, wet winters and relatively cool, wet summers. Somehow I think it has pretty much always been that way.
That said, when Vancouver first came here in the early 19th Century, the Mendenhall Glacier went to tidewater. A hundred years ago, the site of my house was under the Glacier. Today, the Glacier face is about 1 1/2 miles inland from my house. So, OK, something is happening, but those ghastly SUVs weren't around for about three and a half of those four and a half miles of glacial retreat.
In Vino Veritas
Fixing the problem now will be slightly painful, and require some technological and political fixes.
There's nothing technological about it. The technology will take care of itself. If you are talking about forcing people to adopt technology they don't want or confiscating their money to fund research on technology, you are back to political "fixes."
As far as "slightly painful" goes, that is your opinion and one I don't share. If you want to inflict pain upon yourself to solve the problem, you are more than welcome to do so. If you are more interested in using the government to inflict it on everybody else, I have a problem with that.
Fixing the problem later will be *much* more expensive
Another assertion that I can't begin to agree with. There's not nearly enough data to jump to that conclusion. It is all one big unknown. You can't put a price tag on that.
There is nothing prudent about imposing massive costs or draconian regulations to prepare for something that may or may not happen by taking measures that may or may not do anything to solve a problem we may or may not want to solve.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
At least you agree that there is a cultish aspect to GW.
I did see algore's movie, as part of a study group of pro-and-con GW folks. We had a very civil discussion. I was also interviewd for the BBC last fall on this topic.
I would offer that since GW is basically led by the people you are claiming are cult members, there is very likely a lot more cultish aspects of this that you don't perceive.
There is nearly always a bell curve distribution of social movements. the law of large numbers applies to social movements just as it does with the cells in your petri dish.
I think what we will start seeing in the next few months is that even more of the models, not just the hokey hockey stick, will be discarded. By the way, does it not bother you that the hockey stick, the basic descriptive model of anthroGW, (AGW) is deeply flawed?
We are already seeing a valiant rear guard action that is hiding the qualifiers and limitiations offered to the IPCC discardedin favor of more hype and false claims of consensus.
But this is what happens when a self-referential, closed loop belief system starts running out of steam.
As to the non-social aspects of AGW, the false argument the AGW promoters offer is two-fold:
1) if you are skeptical, you are denying climates change.
2) if you are skeptical you are for pollution.
Both are false choices designed to stop discussion from skeptics, and to reinforce the beliefs of te believers.. IOW, stop the voices of doubters and stop the ears of the followers.
AGW propaganda has infected science shows. The recent PBS documentary on Emperor penguins said strongly that AGW was making penguins in danger of extinction due to ice shelves locking them in.
It failed to discuss the fact that it is known ice shelves have broken up in the past far more than they so far have, and that penguins did OK.
It implied that iceshelves breaking up now is due to AGW, inspite of the complete lack of evidence to support the assertion. Infact, iceshelves are about due for a big slideoff to the ocean.
Another annoying thing about AGW promoters is how they rewrite history. they have to write out of history not only the Medieval warming period, but the habitability of Greenland.
As to 2, the skeptics want more pollution, you or another believer posted the silly idea that skeptics want to run up more polluiton to see what might happen.
That is infantile. Wanting rational, fact based policy with integrity is not = to wanting more pollution.
I would submit that since the world will not end, is not going to get much hotter, and is going to be about the same, that the marginal costs of 'fighting' that which doe snot need ot be fought, CO2, will be at the expense of fighting real toxins in the environment. We are on the verge of massive increases in ethanol produciotn. Ethanol is energy negative, wastes a lot water, ties up a lot of land, and burns dirty. yet it is carbon neutral so the AGW believers are sacrificing water, air and land to offset CO2.
that is a real cost and it is high.
...(if it's real) is being caused primarily by CO2? If it is being caused by CO2, then how are you so sure that it's resulting from the particular CO2 emitted by humans? Or that if we didn't burn fossil fuels, that CO2 wouldn't be coming up from somewhere else?
What I boil out of the whole string of comments from you is that 1) it's really hard to construct an experiment consisting of the whole earth, so we have to be content with the experiments we are actually able to perform; and 2) no one has come up with a better explanation for the apparent warming that is taking place.
Point number one must be taken to mean that since the questions we can ask are limited, so too must be the answers. And point number two means that this is really an academic question.
I spend a lot of time evaluating entrepreneurial business proposals. There's a phrase we use to describe proposals with great technical ideas, but in which the strategic marketing is incomplete. We call them science projects. And we never invest in them.
If you listen to these guys it seems that it is a generally accepted fact that we have increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
In the first sentence to the piece that you link to it says that in 150 years CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 380ppm. So if you take 100--the amount of the increase--and you divide by 150--the years of the increase--you come up with .67 ppm a year. (The six repeats so I rounded to .67.) If the global warming sham is as dire as the enviro-wackos are making it out to be, then surely the amount added would have to be a lot more that .67ppm would it not? There is no way you will convince me that a less than one ppm per year increase will lead to global catastrophe. I am going to need more than just that.
Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com
So the rate of increase at the beginning is much lower than the later rate of increase. So we are currently adding more.
I am not saying anything about CO2 and warming with this.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Science depends entirely on testable hypotheses validated by repeatable observations. To repeat myself, since the questions we are able to ask about the whole earth are limited, so are the answers.
It's fine and dandy that a lot of climate scientists all agree that there isn't a better explanation for their observations. Still isn't enough to make me care. Most definitely isn't enough to make me change my behavior.
from this site that shows the rate of carbon burning compared with the amount that has been appearing in the atmosphere. We're certainly burning enough to account for the increase.
The difference between the increase in fossil fuel and total flux points to either a net decrease in rate of growth from other factors or the environment sinking more CO2 as the concentration goes up.
Hmm the biosphere processing more CO2 as there is more of it ??
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
There is a diagram showing the various fluxes of carbon here. I won't try to show it, as there is quite a lot of detail. The estimate is that the land biosphere is losing about 1 gigatonnes per year to the atmosphere (compared with our 6Gt or so of burning). The ocean, however, seems to be absorbing some of the excess.
The U.S and Canada are net absorbers of CO2. Which means if Kyoto were reasonably drafted the rest of the world should be paying us for taking in their carbon.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Bill Clinton's BIG SCARE line on GW is that in 50 years we could lose 50 feet of Manhattan, raising the question: Where will the Knicks play?
For thousands of years before the first Chevy spat its first fume at the ozone, half of the state of SC was under the Atlantic.
Consensus challenged and debunked.
Now, let's call the commie greenies out and move on.
But with ideology on the mind who reads history.
I'm getting somewhat apprehensive, the Controllers, that world wide web of power lusters that have been around since bearskins and caves were in style, are gearing up for some major push that they hope will damage and hurt us little people.
In the process maybe they will be successful in affecting the U.S. in some major and long lasting way.
Sex is fun but power and pain are the real aphrodisiacs for the perverse little Stalins,led in this case by panting American liberals [?].
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville