Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 11 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You did not exactly cite any paper. Let me quote you your exact words in your previous posts:Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
Because if you are, well, no it did not appear in any peer-reviewed journal.
Furthermore, the link to the NAS that you posted gives no indication of what paper they are talking about. There is no title, only references to a Wall Street journal article and another paper that they do not identify, but that they characterize as one that was “not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It may have been talking about the same petition, but it’s difficult to say whether they are talking about the same paper, given the clear discrepancy.
I didn't think to give you a full explanation of an event which you said you were fully aware, and you proved rather handily that you were bluffing when you said you did. Someone working in the sciences not getting this reference is like a professor of English not understanding the phrase, "a word in your shell-like". Here's some help for the future Finn, if you don't know something, just say, "I do not know that." That is so much easier.
Go and investigate for yourself the paper you keep offering, heck maybe you'll even read it, and then be so kind as to tell the others here the results. Investigate the paper, the institute, the periodical, and their sources both scientific and financial. Review the scandal (gawd, even scandals in science are boring) and connect the dots.
But I don't think you will, because what you are bound to find conflicts too violently with your beliefs. And once you've made up your mind, you've never been wrong. Have you?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When did I say I was “fully aware” of this event? In fact what I actually did say was:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I didn't think to give you a full explanation of an event which you said you were fully aware, and you proved rather handily that you were bluffing when you said you did. Someone working in the sciences not getting this reference is like a professor of English not understanding the phrase, "a word in your shell-like". Here's some help for the future Finn, if you don't know something, just say, "I do not know that." That is so much easier.
Quote:So explain to me how “vaguely remember” has become “fully aware.”
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I vaguely remember that “to-do.” Although I didn’t pay much attention to it. Climatology is only marginally related to my field of study so I tend to follow the major issues and not get involved very deeply in the internal conflicts.
Quote:I think your recent hysterics is a result of discovering something that conflicts with your beliefs. You claimed that this paper was not published in a peer-reviewed article, but when I demonstrated that it in fact was published in a peer-reviewed article, instead of responding to that information, you attacked me for trying to “trick” you. Your ability to reason seems to be extremely impaired by discovering that two different URLs can point to the same information. I’m supposed to believe that this plea to emotion is legitimate criticism?
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Go and investigate for yourself the paper you keep offering, heck maybe you'll even read it, and then be so kind as to tell the others here the results. Investigate the paper, the institute, the periodical, and their sources both scientific and financial. Review the scandal (gawd, even scandals in science are boring) and connect the dots.
But I don't think you will, because what you are bound to find conflicts too violently with your beliefs. And once you've made up your mind, you've never been wrong. Have you?
Instead of dealing with the evidence you have reverted to the same ad hominem that rue and sigma were involved in and attempt to impeach my character by suggesting that I’m not scientist when I say I am. It is my belief that such ad hominem generally indicates the limit of one’s argument, so instead of admitting your own lack of response, you attack. A rather childish form of discourse, in my opinion.
You may very well be correct, in that this paper might be the paper that the NAS is referring to. I’m talking with some colleagues at work in the hopes of determining that very thing. But until I do, your ad hominem and hysterics don’t breed much confidence for your claim, however when I find out something, I’ll post it in this thread. If indeed this paper is the paper referenced by the NAS, then it raises the question of why the NAS chooses to wrongly characterize this paper as one that is not published in a peer-reviewed article. Indeed, IF this paper is the one in question, there would seem to be deception on both sides.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m talking with some colleagues at work in the hopes of determining that very thing.
So you're going to ask your buddies? That's how you're going to find out? Why don't you get your mom's input while you're at it?
Way to research, Aristotle.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe I will. At this point, I’m fairly certain whatever input she could offer would be more intelligent then yours.
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
So you're going to ask your buddies? That's how you're going to find out? Why don't you get your mom's input while you're at it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The increase in temperatures is valid, reliable, and significant. Both the rate of increase and the absolute values are significantly different, based on geological evidence (ice cores and so forth).
The greenhouse effect is the best explanation so far, because other effects (change is solar output, change in earth orbit, contrails and NO2 etc.) have been ruled out. (There are examples of significant COOLING, but those are generally explainable in terms volcanic activity.)
CO2 is not the most powerful greenhouse gas. Others such as methane (also a product of human activity) influence global warming. However, just because it is ONE factor of several (man-made) factors doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken. Using medical policy as an example, although it is more effective and efficient to reduce heart attacks though diet and exercise, it is very difficult to get people to actually do what is good for them, so we turn- successfully- to statins and other measures to treat cardiac problems.
Fossil fuel consumption can EASILY be reduced, especially in the USA, where we spend 60% of our energy just moving things around. Requiring better vehicle fuel economy would be a technologically easy step.
And just because you work on one aspect of the problem (reducing CO2 emissions) doesn't prohibit taking other approaches. (How did you get the idea that this is an "either/or" problem?) We SHOULD indeed be working on reducing population growth (hopefullly on reducing population absolute values) because we're also at the limti of the water and nitrogen cycles. Reforestation might work (although most CO2 absorption occurs in the ocean.) The fact that we are ACCUMULATING CO2 tells you that we have exceeded the capacity of the carbon cylce.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I know how someone with access to super-secret information can get a science degree w/ apparently nothing rubbing off...
Quote:
At least 28 senior-level employees had degrees from diploma mills, the GAO found, while cautioning that "this number is believed to be an understatement."... and three unnamed managers with super-secret Q-level security clearance at the National Nuclear Security Administration—including an Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended no classes and took no tests to get a promotion-enabling master's degree from LaSalle University, a diploma mill affiliated with Kent College and also based in Mandeville.
From
www.reason.com "Call Me Doktor"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I spoke to a friend of mine at work, who is an atmospheric physicists and works as our resident climatologist. He’s not an expert on the topic of global warming nor do I think he works much in the theoretical area, but like me, he could only vaguely recall the controversy surrounding this petition. His thought on the paper was that some of the authors’ conclusions were “stretching.” I tend to agreed.
I did a search for this paper and found that this paper has been published since the publication in the Medical Sentinel. Most notably is a publication in Climate Research, a peer-reviewed journal of climatology.
The controversy surrounding this paper began when it was used to bolster a petition prior to its publication. This was a mistake that cast doubt on the paper early on. Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the NAS and supporter of the petition, urged the authors to submit the paper for publication, but Dr. Robinson, the principal author of the draft version, claimed that doing so would prevent the paper from being used by the petition. It is clear that the authors had political motivations in their use of this paper. To what degree this political motivation influences the conclusions of this paper is hard to say, but probably some.
While reading through some old news, I came across a New York Times article on the controversy, and found this paragraph interesting.
“Many atmospheric scientists and ecologists who believe global warming to be a serious threat had expressed anger and alarm over the article because it was printed in a format and type face similar to that of the academy's own journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In his letter, Dr. Seitz, a longtime skeptic on the question of global warming, also identified himself as a past academy president.” [emphasis mine]
The New York Times, "Science Academy Disputes Attack On Global Warming," April 22, 1998.
Note that the New York Times qualifies the group of “atmospheric scientists and ecologist” who were upset over this article as being those “who believe global warming to be a serious threat.” It seems reasonable that this group of people would find fault in this paper’s conclusions regardless of how, when or where it was published. And since I don’t tend to fall into the category of someone who would define global warming to be a “serious threat,” I probably didn’t pay much attention to the paper when it first came out.
Finally, on the issue of this paper’s credibility: I find some of the conclusion to be questionable, but what is certain is that this paper is published in, not one, but at least two peer-reviewed scientific journals, one of them being a journal of climatology. So I find it equally questionable that the NAS would characterize this paper as being one that was not published in any peer-reviewed journal, as this is patently false. In my opinion, while the conclusions that this paper raises are certainly up for debate, the credibility of this paper as a scientific article is not, and therefore represents valid scientific dissent from the mainstream.
ADD: After reading the version of this paper published in Climate Research it appears that there have been made some simply changes to the conclusions that seem to make this a much stronger paper.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One need not have a Q-level clearance to get fake degree from an unaccredited college. Anyone can do it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I know how someone with access to super-secret information can get a science degree w/ apparently nothing rubbing off...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just dropping in for a quick comment: in terms of correlation v causation, I feel the need to reiterate that science never proves anything, it can only disprove.
That aside, I feel there is some idea that factors are being generated simply by fudging them within the model to make the numbers 'work out'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The CO2 'greenhouse gas factor' was worked out in laboratories (as was the factor for H2 and other greenhouse gases). Others of the many factors in the model have been worked out the same way. Tropical jungles - can they be counted on to absorb excess CO2? The answer is no. (Data was obtained by meticulous decades-long study of large areas of jungle. The mechanism is - CO2 uptake does not go up during the day as the plants are already optimized, but metabolic activity and sugar-burning - respiration - does go up at night. The plants are faring poorly in the warmer nights.)
One of the interesting things about the global warming model is that it is making predictions which are being supported by data. And every time it results in another accurate prediction (about CO2, clouds, etc), the whole concept is strengthened.
I do believe that a single study can overturn a large body of accumulated data. However, that study has to be sufficiently central and solid. Nothing I have seen is that revolutionary.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All very good questions.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1) Are increased temperatures said to represent global climate valid, reliable, and significant?
(valid = accurate and representative of the variable we're trying to measure, reliable = replicable, and significant = not random fluctuation)
2) Is there a valid, reliable, and significant correlation between increased global temperatures and increased CO2?
3) Is the greenhouse effect the most significant contributor to increased global temperatures? Can other reasons we might be heating up be dismissed?
4) Is the CO2 increase large enough to affect global climate? Can other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor) be ruled out as having a more substantial effect?
5) Are the computer models used to predict CO2 effects on global climate valid?
6) Would restrictions in fossil fuel emissions reduce CO2 enough to change global climate? Would fossil fuel restrictions reduce more CO2 than other policy changes, such as population growth restrictions (6 billion people breathing 24/7 is a LOT of CO2) or reforestation/ deforestation restrictions?
The mean global temperature does seem to have increased over the course of the last century. It is difficult to say how significant this increase is, as it’s within the margin of error. Although I would say that it probably has increased. Even more puzzling is that a close examination of the data reveals that most of the warming over the course of the last century occurred prior to 1940, before the onset of the rapid increases in greenhouse gasses. It’s hard to imagine how carbon dioxide (et al) could be the cause of an increase in global temperature when those gases don’t appear to have existed in the atmosphere. At the very least I would have to say that there is some other mechanism involved, if these temperatures are to be believed. But there are many studies that suggest that these temperatures may not be believable as a reliable source of global temperature. There are reliable studies that suggest that the global temperature may not have actually increased significantly at all. The models tend to do a very poor job of predicting current global temperatures, much less future global temperatures; almost consistently over predicting. And they don’t seem to predict satellite and balloon data at all, which leads to the possibility that the models may be doing nothing more then mirroring the intent of the modeler. Until the models improve enough so that they can be checked against current data, most of the issues surrounding global warming will remain theoretical.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME