The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused as to when the burden of proof was transferred over from the scientists to the skeptics...now I'm supposed to prove that the theory of man made global warming is faulty?

No, I'm asking you to support your assertion that scientists are "ignoring the other half of the facts that tell use that (rapid Arctic melting) has little or nothing to do with man made global warming."

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...man made global warming is improbable in every possible aspect. The science is bad, really bad...

And you can add these two statements to the list too.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Btw, I think you would find we are both on the same side here in terms of "preserving the human race".

I agree. We both want what's best for humanity and the planet long term.

However the difference is that I am not dismissing articles because I misread the text, claiming people who devote their lives in pursuit of the truth are purposefully ignoring data, lying about the predictions these people made, fighting their conclusions with strawman arguments and then attempting to sidestep the whole issue when I am called to the mat.

GhostintheShell, if you don't want to believe in man made global warming, fine. However if you want to spread your opinion on a public forum, you need to be ready to back up your claims otherwise it's not the human race you're trying to preserve but your own ego.

bkelly

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Yes. Take the entire body of research into global warming and point out how it is bad.

It is easy to point to misleading data points. An doing that has some validity. But to say the entire body of work is "bad, really bad" needs some backing up. There is ALLOT of research into this and most of it points in one direction.

I admit it all could be wrong. But when a tornado watch is issued it isn't prudent to take a picnic.

[GhostintheShell]

The Oregon Petition, now signed by over 19,000 American scientists
(Many of these people are not climate scientists, but hey neither are most of the the scientists in the "consensus of scientists" that are supporting the theory of global warming.)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 various earth and climate scientists)

http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...e-4db87559d605

BBC - The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1


Here are some fun quotes from various sources, cherry picked for your pleasure.

"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."

Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris

Paul Reiter again, in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:

"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."

Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

"The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."

Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace

"The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1% of that."

"Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. Solar activity is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth."

"IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorializing. For example, when Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration, the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor. His name was not removed until he threatened legal action."

"John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature" (Not the other way around.)

[GhostintheShell]

BTW, interesting revisionist history on Dr Stephen Schneider's website there....did he or did he not write "The Genesis Strategy" in 1976, warning of the coming glaciation, and also wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age.

Interesting for someone to write an entire book dedicated to a subject when according to that paper on his website "we didn't know enough to predict warming or cooling".

[El_Gringo_Grande]

@ GhostintheShell

The first guy on that list seems to support ID. Well, if that is the type of person that signs this petition it gets no respect from me.

Some of others I looked up seem to be in the economics field. From an economic view point the proposed actions are harmful and maybe there are, from that viewpoint, better solutions.

So what you, and many others point out, is not that the science is bad. What you are actually attacking is the political reaction to the science. Which is valid but at least understand what you are attacking.

And to criticize current science for past science is missing the entire point of the process! No?

[GhostintheShell]

To be honest I don't care what they support or don't support aside from global warming. I really don't even give either list that much credit, it is there simply as a counterpoint to the idea of a "consensus among scientists".

If the IPCC has a "consensus" list where "scientists" need to legally threaten to get their name removed, I can supply a list of "scientists" with an equal level of integrity.

I still believe that the "science" behind MMGW is really quite bad, in particular the measurement of the data and the unsubstantiated conclusions that have been drawn. It's as simple as it being unquestionable in its hypothesis, method and reported conclusions, or it fails the simple criteria of scientific method.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...ic_method2.gif

Special emphasis on the portion of the kindergarten-level-flowchart that says what to do when your hypothesis is deemed "partially true".

I didn't see where it says to market your "partially true" hypothesis until the whole world accepts your failure as the truth and crush the voices of those that oppose you as heretics to be placed in the same bin as holocost deniers.

But hey, the ends justify the means right? Isn't that "science" now?

[Gillespie]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Here's something you might find interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210212227.htm

Fascinating. Do you think its possible that we'll evolve into a different lifeform someday?

[Soulja]

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Do you think its possible that we'll evolve into a different lifeform someday?

unless doctors/scientists do something to a baby or a fetus, i don't think naturally we will.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

To be honest I don't care what they support or don't support aside from global warming. I really don't even give either list that much credit, it is there simply as a counterpoint to the idea of a "consensus among scientists".

If the IPCC has a "consensus" list where "scientists" need to legally threaten to get their name removed, I can supply a list of "scientists" with an equal level of integrity.

I still believe that the "science" behind MMGW is really quite bad, in particular the measurement of the data and the unsubstantiated conclusions that have been drawn. It's as simple as it being unquestionable in its hypothesis, method and reported conclusions, or it fails the simple criteria of scientific method.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...ic_method2.gif

Special emphasis on the portion of the kindergarten-level-flowchart that says what to do when your hypothesis is deemed "partially true".

I didn't see where it says to market your "partially true" hypothesis until the whole world accepts your failure as the truth and crush the voices of those that oppose you as heretics to be placed in the same bin as holocost deniers.

But hey, the ends justify the means right? Isn't that "science" now?

The only thing I think is important is a consensus among those that study the weather and climate and fields directly related to those things. I believe that there is meaningful consensus in that regard.

The other lists? Yep, pure politics. Who cares what a PhD in English lit or economics thinks about the science out side political maneuverings? Politics is important but not to the science itself. If the science is political at this point the process will weed it out.

I think you are being too cynical. A healthy dose of cynicism is fine but too much of it hampers any meaningful discussion. The claim that "the science is bad" is being disingenuous unless you can point to a body of work that, on the whole, counters the current theories. You can believe in the Easter bunny but that doesn't prove anything.

And your criticism is justified but after doing extensive reading a few months ago I saw many predictions that where confirmed. There was also much discussion of the things that didn't pan out. The whole water vapor versus CO2 and increased solar activity, among other things, where discussed and they where not waved off, as many would suggest. Many said that those things are being looked at and how they fit into the current theories out there. And there are, from what I could tell, multiple theories orbiting a general one.

I just wish people could separate the science from the politics. (Yes, there are scientists out there that don't separate the two either and I don't excuse their behavior.) There is a major, but often blurred, difference between the two. I don't think that the science is bad at all. I think the science is pretty damn good considering how complex the global climate is. I do think that the politics around it is ugly. Of course depending on your political leanings they can be viewed as good or bad. Environmentalists think the current political environment is pretty good, I would bet. Others, like big oil and those that are against government interference in business, probably think it is bad.

Still, you haven't pointed out to me a body of work that goes against the prevailing theory. I have been to some of the scientists and concerned individuals that say it can't be true and some of them have valid arguments for parts of the research in support of the MMGW theory. But they don't seem to be able to counter the entire body of work. Claims of persecution to me is the whiners way out. If they think they are correct and everybody else is wrong then keep working hard to prove it. Contribute what you can to influence the debate. But for god sakes prove it. Don't just point out a few problems and claim the whole thing is wrong. It ends up sounding like the ID people. "See!! The theory isn't perfect so it is all wrong!"

[GhostintheShell]

I still say that the measurement of the data is what's wrong fundamentally.

Just as a back ground, part of my job is to design extremely high accuracy thermometry apparatus. And by that I don't mean that I pick up a catalog and order a bunch of off the shelf components and plug them in together. I engineer and design the electronics, the boards, select microprocessors, write the code for the microprocessors, and calibrate the final instruments.

I would say that without a doubt that we were unable to accurately measure temperature to less than 1 degree C until ~1960's. (At least on a mass scale where hundreds of weather stations could easily be equipped with reasonably accurate automated instruments). The biggest leaps in accuracy came with the invention of the microprocessor to be able to linearize the sensors used using polynomial equations such as Steinhart-Hart (1968). The problem with only being accurate to 1 degree C is that your resolution is unacceptable in comparison to what you are trying to observe. We are looking for temperature changes of 0.2C per decade and we are averaging hourly or daily data with a resolution of less than 1 degree C. The average of 100 measurements made with a low resolution does not give us enhanced resolution in any way.

Example: If I handed you a ruler that only had lines at 0 inch and at 12 inches and told you to measure something 0.25 inches long but do it 100 times and average the results it doesn't mean that we get any closer to understanding how long the item really is. We cannot interpolate the data when we record it simply because we know that it is close to the 0 inch mark and far from the 12 inch mark. We have a resolution of 12 inches in this extreme example so we can only record a 0 or a 12, and we cannot guess in between. In the case of the thermometer we don't know that the error in between 0 and 1 degree C is linear, (if it was then perhaps the instrument could be calibrated and more indications added for a higher resolution).

Measurements prior to the 20 century were unreliable at best. Often weather stations consisted of direct observation of alcohol filled glass thermometers (or worse) and recording th results in a log book. When the observer was sick or missed a day the log book was often interpolated or guessed. Sort of a "yesterday seemed colder than today and warmer than the previous day so I'll write down XX degrees C". Different people often recorded the observations on various days, further adding to the observational bias.

Satellites came much later, and increased the accuracy of the data significantly but the bottom line is that they really do not have accurate data with a relatively low uncertainty budget for any length of time to draw conclusions.

Don't even talk to me about the estimation of historical temperature data, it's uncertainty is beyond unacceptable to the point of speculation.

In any case, the entire point of this mess is that we have good data for maybe 30-40 years, which on a global scale is a really short period of time to observe any trend in order to draw conclusions.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Fascinating. Do you think its possible that we'll evolve into a different lifeform someday?

Absolutely. Actually, it seems likely that we will split into two distinct species first: an attractive upper class and an unattractive lower class. There was something published recently about that hypothesis too. I think it makes a lot of sense.

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Absolutely. Actually, it seems likely that we will split into two distinct species first: an attractive upper class and an unattractive lower class. There was something published recently about that hypothesis too. I think it makes a lot of sense.

Not bad....first throw your support behind Global Warming and now you are presenting a derivation of the theory of Eugenics as well. That makes sense because Man Made Global Warming and Eugenics share so many similarities, research flaws, bad science, bad politics, embarrassing Nobel Prize awards, prominent scientists supporting it, Hollywood jumping on board as if they understood anything about the topic...

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spri...olland/Pop.htm

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I still say that the measurement of the data is what's wrong fundamentally.

Just as a back ground, part of my job is to design extremely high accuracy thermometry apparatus. And by that I don't mean that I pick up a catalog and order a bunch of off the shelf components and plug them in together. I engineer and design the electronics, the boards, select microprocessors, write the code for the microprocessors, and calibrate the final instruments.

I would say that without a doubt that we were unable to accurately measure temperature to less than 1 degree C until ~1960's. (At least on a mass scale where hundreds of weather stations could easily be equipped with reasonably accurate automated instruments). The biggest leaps in accuracy came with the invention of the microprocessor to be able to linearize the sensors used using polynomial equations such as Steinhart-Hart (1968). The problem with only being accurate to 1 degree C is that your resolution is unacceptable in comparison to what you are trying to observe. We are looking for temperature changes of 0.2C per decade and we are averaging hourly or daily data with a resolution of less than 1 degree C. The average of 100 measurements made with a low resolution does not give us enhanced resolution in any way.

Example: If I handed you a ruler that only had lines at 0 inch and at 12 inches and told you to measure something 0.25 inches long but do it 100 times and average the results it doesn't mean that we get any closer to understanding how long the item really is. We cannot interpolate the data when we record it simply because we know that it is close to the 0 inch mark and far from the 12 inch mark. We have a resolution of 12 inches in this extreme example so we can only record a 0 or a 12, and we cannot guess in between. In the case of the thermometer we don't know that the error in between 0 and 1 degree C is linear, (if it was then perhaps the instrument could be calibrated and more indications added for a higher resolution).

Measurements prior to the 20 century were unreliable at best. Often weather stations consisted of direct observation of alcohol filled glass thermometers (or worse) and recording th results in a log book. When the observer was sick or missed a day the log book was often interpolated or guessed. Sort of a "yesterday seemed colder than today and warmer than the previous day so I'll write down XX degrees C". Different people often recorded the observations on various days, further adding to the observational bias.

Satellites came much later, and increased the accuracy of the data significantly but the bottom line is that they really do not have accurate data with a relatively low uncertainty budget for any length of time to draw conclusions.

Don't even talk to me about the estimation of historical temperature data, it's uncertainty is beyond unacceptable to the point of speculation.

In any case, the entire point of this mess is that we have good data for maybe 30-40 years, which on a global scale is a really short period of time to observe any trend in order to draw conclusions.

Now this is something I can agree with. And I think it is valid point. But it is not just the change in temperature that the science is using. I think the media and politicians use that data because it is something everybody can relate to. But they use other measurements such as total ice mass, ocean currents, water fall amounts. And they do take into account the fact that measurements are skewed and not as accurate as those in the past. They have calculation methods to account for heat islands, inconsistent collection stations, satellite anomalies and weaknesses and, more recently, cooling island effects as caused by massive irrigation are being added to the models.

They are models and are open to mistakes, potentially big mistakes. But no field can collect perfect data and they all use models to correct for this fact. And assumptions are made, of course.

I agree that some of the more sever predictions are mostly fear of the unknown. The releasing of all the CO2 in the permafrost and in the frozen sea beds causing catastrophic temperature rises killing of large sections of life, for example. It is like the predictions of what would happen if a largish asteroid/comet hit earth. We think we know what would happen but cannot really prove it. Yet we still are putting work and money into tracking near earth objects.

I have not heard of a viable alternative to the theory currently dominating the climate field. The current one does a pretty good job of explaining all of what is observed. And as time goes on and more data is collected it seems the theory is getting stronger, not weaker. That includes the predictions of the mini-ice age made back in the 70s. It actually fits into what is now known and doesn't really break anything.

It is up to governments and people to decide on what to do with this information. True, some take it all as gospel and that isn't good. Others use it as a hammer. That is just politics as usual. But I think to ignore it is insane. I have said this numerous times and I will say it again. At some point we do need to start depending more on energy sources that are less volatile than the carbon based ones now used. The whole ethanol thing is a short term fix that cannot be sustained. And I believe there will always be a place for carbon based energy sources but at much, much reduced levels. The theory of man made global warming should be apart of the discussion of when and how fast this change should be made.

[GlobalWarmin]

Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216...ewarmingdenial

Merry Christmas

[GhostintheShell]

Thank you GlobalWarmin its just what I hoped for! Sorry I opened it early.