Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: Global Warming: Science or Religion?

  1. #1 Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Forum Freshman tkkenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    www.tkkenyon.com
    Posts
    11
    Morning Edition on NPR recently produced a puff piece about Kristen Bynes, blogger of Ponder the Maunder, a blog dedicated to refuting the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

    While the issue of a 16 yo kid becoming a leading global warming contrarian is devastating for the contrary view's validity as a scientific theory, and it seems that she attended a short course at UGoog in Climate Science to arrive at her pre-ordained conclusions (which is the complete antithesis of how science should be conducted,) and that NPR is succumbing to natural selection by highest ratings attractor, it seems that there is more to this story.

    Personally, I’m not sold on the whole idea of global warming, man-made or not. I used to be. I was dismayed by the enormous amount of CO2 that we humans are venting into the atmosphere, just like we exhaust raw sewage into our oceans, etc., etc., etc. And, you know, it seemed warmer, discounting that horrendous Iowa winter of 1995 when temps hit neg 40F and the Iowa River froze over. You can eliminate outliers in your data, as long as you can account for them, or at least make a nice statistical argument for ignoring them. It seems that the consensus of the scientific community is that man-made global warming is a threat, and I generally go along with scientific consensus unless there’s a valid reason to doubt, and it had better be a good one. I don’t like the contrarian position.

    I do, however, like data. Hard data. Preferably raw, pre-crunched data.

    Here’s what changed my mind on global warming: I read that horrible anti-GW novel by Michael Crichton, which so sticks in my mind that I can’t recall the title, and I thought that his novel was so badly written that surely its conclusions can be tossed aside with great force. Crichton is both a horrid novelist and merely an MD.

    (Yes, I am arrogant to snark so widely. I hold a fiction MFA from Iowa, where I received many prizes, and have published two well-received novels. During my PhD work in microbiology, I taught medical students in a Midwestern medical school. They’re great at memorizing things but, let’s face it, medical school does not reward original thought nor critical thinking. Their exams are multiple-guess. So, I’m snarky and arrogant. Crichton has loads more money than I have and a huge house on Kauai. He can take the shot.)

    So, I set out on my own course of study at UGoog. I expected to quickly dismiss Crichton’s objections with data and confirm the majority opinion. It seems like an overwhelming opinion. I figured it would take an hour.

    Here’s what I found: the global warming data is terrible. The methods that collected the data that produced the scary graph that we’ve all seen (where temperature spikes up in the 1970’s) are beyond shaky. It’s really bad science. I read the whole UN report, and the data that is cited in the prologue, which everyone reads, is a minor part of the whole report. Only surface temps, and only those in major urban areas, are going up. Atmospheric temperatures are not. This is to be expected by the “heat island” effect, where asphalt retains more heat than soil and re-radiates this heat at night.

    Personally, I’m on the fence. The data behind GW, whether man-made or not, sucks.

    Here’s the problem: whenever you say that the data sucks, people jump on you like you insulted Jesus. They label you a “denialist” and, rather than debate the data, accuse you of wanting to rape the planet.

    The global warming debate has moved from the arena of science, where one is free to debate data, methods, and conclusions, and into the area of religion, where one must adhere to dogma or else risk retribution.

    That’s a huge problem.

    When I published a short blog post about this (http://science4non-majors.blogspot.c...n-coleman.html ), I got hate mail. Not refute mail. Not argue mail. Hate mail.

    Even though my blog post encouraged recycling and conservation, people accused me of trying to destroy the planet.

    The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.

    TK Kenyon
    http://www.tkkenyon.com/
    http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/

    Author of RABID ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640021 ) and CALLOUS ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640226 ): Two novels about science and religion, with some sex and murder.


    TK Kenyon

    Author of RABID: A Novel "What begins as a riff on Peyton Place smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. …Kenyon creates four very subtle and intriguing central characters. A novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice that makes us laugh, wince, and reflect all at the same time. Kenyon is definitely a keeper.” --Booklist Starred Review.

    Author of CALLOUS: A Novel, May, 2008
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by tkkenyon
    The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.
    couldn't agree with you more, but is it possible when the whole issue is so politicised ?

    i used to be like you, convinced that global warming was solid science, until doubts started setting in
    not that i'm convinced that global warming is a massive fraud, but i feel uneasy with the models-only approach

    i suppose the approach should be : what's it going to cost us ?

    so far all efforts to reduce carbon emissions have failed because the 3 largest contributors don't want to play ball - in that case i find it ridiculous that i should be asked to pay for my carbon footprint if my efforts (or even a whole country's efforts) are canceled out by vast numbers of chinese power plants coming on-line
    on the other, if you agree with the business as usual scenario and you get it wrong it's a big thing to get wrong : the possible consequences could be devastating + by the time we find out we're wrong it might be too late

    was there ever a situation where the term catch-22 is more apt ?


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2
    We have same kind of issue here in Thailand. Everyone is so crazy about global warming. Without really study the cause and effect, a lot of people just go with the TV ads.

    It's now became fashion.
     

  5. #4 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    duplicate post argg....
     

  6. #5 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by tkkenyon
    Only surface temps, and only those in major urban areas, are going up. Atmospheric temperatures are not. This is to be expected by the “heat island” effect, where asphalt retains more heat than soil and re-radiates this heat at night. .
    I'm not sure what data you're looking at but your statement is not true, rural stations also show increased temperature trend.

    Also, Sea Surface temperatures(SST), which have nothing to do with any remnent urban heating effect that's not otherwise removed, have also been going up. I've posted the National Climate Data Center global temperature analysis of SST below. There analysis is consistent with that by other agencies (HAD & NASA) over the same period.

    There's also lots of indirect evidence as well--such as bird migration date changes, measurements of glaciers, as well as sea-level rise that remove any doubt that the modest rise of temperature over the past 120 years is definately real.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    I understand the indirect data - but do not see it as confirmatory. In many cases, the historic data against which the phenomena are judged are lacking or obscure. They are often the product of folks looking for changes to tie to global warming rather than independent observations.
    That doesn't mean they aren't accurate.
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    In many cases, the historic data against which the phenomena are judged are lacking or obscure. They are often the product of folks looking for changes to tie to global warming rather than independent observations.
    One case of good historical data is the true/false condition of arctic passage clear of sea ice. Explorers have been poking that way for centuries. And when the openings appeared they took everybody by surprise. Warming predictions were too conservative. Now the permafrost is melting and again that's a true/false condition because vehicles can't reach northern communities across the mud.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    I understand the indirect data - but do not see it as confirmatory. In many cases, the historic data against which the phenomena are judged are lacking or obscure. They are often the product of folks looking for changes to tie to global warming rather than independent observations.
    That doesn't mean they aren't accurate.
    When lots of indirect data (e.g., migration dates of birds, area of glaciers, etc) is consistent with the direct data (tens of thousands of sea surface temperature records) it goes far to reinforce confidence that the observed trends are real. This is the case with surface temperature over the past 120 years--direct and indirect evidence point towards modest warming over the period.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    i must say, glabal warming seems rather concincing BUT, one eruption of a volcano on earth, gives off far more Carbon Dioxide, than YEARS of human's revolution in the world.. as much as we cut down, where hardly going to make a difference unless we would stop a volcano erupting.
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Is that right? Volcanos are smoking all the time, and often when they pop the evening news hardly mentions it. You mean a big one?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    yes, a big one, the biggest of ones can cause the world to freeze up a bit as volcano's can cause 'volcanic winter' where the ash in the air can circle to world a few times blcoking out the sun. which causes everything to be incredibly cold, thanksfully its not a rare occurance.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I've already made EXHAUSTIVE posts in this thread that, essentially, prove global warming is being caused by the sun. The ultimate defeat was when solar irradiance data from one of my sources more or less perfectly corroborated with satellite data. Also, I conclusively prove that ground data cannot be trusted. I do not wish to repeat myself, and all the data is in this thread. Have a read.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  14. #13 Global worming 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3
    Hi, just want to drop an idea about global worming. I do belive that Sun is one of primary influences on our climat. Here is something that my explain that: http://www.geocities.com/sergetulupovray/
    Serge
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    no offence but if you thing the sun is main cause of glabal warming your a fool, there plenty of proof that the gassed are trapping the heat inside the ozone layer.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Judging by your grammar and overall terrible use of your own language, I'm going to just go right ahead and assume you haven't really READ much (or any) of the evidence, much less comprehended it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by danacus2
    no offence but if you thing the sun is main cause of glabal warming your a fool, there plenty of proof that the gassed are trapping the heat inside the ozone layer.
    ahem, but if global warming is to be taken as fact it is fully the main cause of the sun as this delivers nearly all of the earths heat. Carbon dioxide levels are supposedly just a factor they do not cause global warming.
    heat from the sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed or reflected from the surface of the earth. the main theory of global warming is that this heat can no longer escape into space and therfore gets trapped in the atmosphere.
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
     

  18. #17  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3
    Any siggestions on what to read? And what is my own language? What is yours by the way?
    Serge
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Any siggestions on what to read?
    I recommend this essay, which is a good summary of the history of studies of the effect, if any, of the sun on climate. If you read all the way to the end you will find that the current warming trend is most probably not caused by the sun.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    ahem, but if global warming is to be taken as fact it is fully the main cause of the sun as this delivers nearly all of the earths heat.
    yes that is correct my friend,


    Carbon dioxide levels are supposedly just a factor they do not cause global warming.
    heat from the sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed or reflected from the surface of the earth. the main theory of global warming is that this heat can no longer escape into space and therfore gets trapped in the atmosphere.
    i believe some of that is true, but carbon dioxide is forming a layer of gas by our o-zone layer, and the sun is yes warming up our planet. but as the heat passes through our ozone layer, it heats up the atmosphere, and these gasses are stopping SOME of the heat escaping, some is still escaping, but as this gas build up occurs, the more heat it will keep in, therefore the sun is the main cause correct as it produces the heat in first place, but the gasses are also high in the cause of 'Global Warming'.
     

  21. #20  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    The theory of global warming and greenhouse gasses is that the gases in question act throughout the whole atmosphere, not just the ozone layer - people often mistake global warming and ozone depletion as the same thing. In fact, they are completely unrelated.

    Carbon dioxide levels are increasing roughly uniformly through the whole of the troposphere and stratosphere.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    thankyou for the correction, i was not 100certain on the o-zone layer part, but i know the correct answer now.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I think the scientific consensus is at the moment that we are going through a phase of human induced global warming.

    All the discussions on internet forums isn't going to change that.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    Volcano's give off more carbon dioxide that humans ever did, we contribute to it, but arent the main cause.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Could you list the recent above average vulcanic activity?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  26. #25  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
    Volcanic activity has a huge and barely understood effect on global climate. In an average converse volcano eruption, ash travels 2-3 times around the world before falling. In large eruptions, this can cause volcanic winters, or intense global warming.

    I doubt our industry has as much influence on climate as this.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    i cannot give an amount of carbon dioxide released per year by humans and a comparison to volcanic activities carbon dioxide release, look it up, you may find some interesting facts.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Volcanic activity has a huge and barely understood effect on global climate. In an average converse volcano eruption, ash travels 2-3 times around the world before falling. In large eruptions, this can cause volcanic winters, or intense global warming.
    Every scientific model I've run across links aerosols to short-term global cooling, or as you've stated, 'volcanic winter'.

    If that's the case, how does ash cause 'intense global warming'?
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
    Volcanic activity has a huge and barely understood effect on global climate. In an average converse volcano eruption, ash travels 2-3 times around the world before falling. In large eruptions, this can cause volcanic winters, or intense global warming.

    I doubt our industry has as much influence on climate as this.
    Yes, could you list the publications please that show that there is a difference in vulcanic activity in recent history.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by danacus2
    Volcano's give off more carbon dioxide that humans ever did, we contribute to it, but arent the main cause.
    Actually man produces more than 100 times what volcanoes produce in an average year--and there isn't a single scientific study done by anyone that suggest volconoes produce more than small fraction of what man produces every year.

    Large volcanoes can produce large effects, the largest supervolcanoes even catastrophic effects--fortunately they are exceedingly rare.
     

  31. #30  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Volcanic activity has a huge and barely understood effect on global climate. In an average converse volcano eruption, ash travels 2-3 times around the world before falling. In large eruptions, this can cause volcanic winters, or intense global warming.
    Every scientific model I've run across links aerosols to short-term global cooling, or as you've stated, 'volcanic winter'.

    If that's the case, how does ash cause 'intense global warming'?
    Sorry, for the global warming aspect, I was referring to the large quantities of CO2 released.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  32. #31  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by danacus2
    Volcano's give off more carbon dioxide that humans ever did, we contribute to it, but arent the main cause.
    Actually man produces more than 100 times what volcanoes produce in an average year--and there isn't a single scientific study done by anyone that suggest volconoes produce more than small fraction of what man produces every year.
    That's because there are many volcanoes around the world, and very few studies into them.

    The extent of their influence remains largely unknown.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  33. #32 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Since the proponents of global warming predict floods, famine and pestulence in the IPCC report, I am going to say its a religion.
     

  34. #33 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Since the proponents of global warming predict floods, famine and pestulence in the IPCC report, I am going to say its a religion.
    Floods, famine and pestilence are scientifically defined concepts. It's allowed to predict consequences of a model that fall within the range of scientific possibility.

    The rational link between global warming and floods, famine and pestilence are not far fetched and described in the literature.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  35. #34 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Since the proponents of global warming predict floods, famine and pestulence in the IPCC report, I am going to say its a religion.
    Floods, famine and pestilence are scientifically defined concepts. It's allowed to predict consequences of a model that fall within the range of scientific possibility.

    The rational link between global warming and floods, famine and pestilence are not far fetched and described in the literature.
    I am still going to say it is a religion since the IPCC report does not give an estimate of the alleged increase in any projected events. It merely states that such events have a .66 probability of increasing over the next 200 years. By how much? Pick any number you want. I picked an increase of .0000001%. That is the fundemental problem with the report. It is non-specific. The projections are worthless for that reason. Therefore it is religion, not science.
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    nice to hear you say that religion is worthless
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    They did say (as i distill from your post) that there was a 0.66 probability in increase in the occurrence of these events.

    Let me now demonstrate the concept of non-specificity for you.


    The report could have said: there is a 0.66 probability of either an increase or decrease in the occurrence of these events.

    That would have been non-specific.

    I haven't read the report but apparently the projections all pointed towards an increase. In science if all data points to one possibility of a binary choice then it is pretty fucking specific.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  38. #37 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Therefore it is religion, not science.
    The key feature that distinguishes science from religion is the use of the scientific method. The central feature of the scientific method is a reliance on testable predictions.

    The hypothesis of global warming is science, because it makes testable predictions (and then tests them).

    HTH.
     

  39. #38 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    The key feature that distinguishes science from religion is the use of the scientific method. The central feature of the scientific method is a reliance on testable predictions.
    Agreed. However, if no specific prediction is made, then the method is worthless. Predicting that the climate is going to change is an example of a worthless prediction. It is like predicting that the stock market is going to fluctuate. No kidding! An example of a religious prediction is that Jesus will come and save us all. There are lack of specifics in that prediction also. See the similarity yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    The hypothesis of global warming is science, because it makes testable predictions (and then tests them).
    LOL! The predictions are a joke! For example, according to the IPCC there is a .66 probability that crop failures will increase over the next 200 years. No matter what the result, they can say they were right. If crop failures decrease, their asses are covered. The part of the report that is particularly unscientific is the leap of faith that any change in the climate must lead to dire consequences. What do they base that on? What evidence? Notice they cover themselves by not giving any specific numbers or even a numerical range for the alleged increases in crop failures and other events that are supposed to increase.

    The report also states that there is insufficient data to confirm any connection between global warming and increases in cyclone activity. It also contains the disclaimer that sea levels could rise or fall. Yet the news media ignores these disclaimers. That is not science once again.
     

  40. #39 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The part of the report that is particularly unscientific is the leap of faith that any change in the climate must lead to dire consequences.
    Not sure why you consider this a leap of faith. The types of crops you plant, flood zones you define and built dams to protect from etc are all based on what ever is the normal range of conditions; if you change the climate those baseline assumptions change as well and almost certainly lead to unexpected (aka dire) consequences. It's not a leap of faith--it a well based logical deduction.

    What evidence?
    The reports are pretty detailed-I suggest you start there.

    Notice they cover themselves by not giving any specific numbers
    A 66% probability is a specific number.

    Interestingly you could pull up the recent Pentagon study that assessed climate change as the number one threat to our national security, above all the usual conventional suspects (e.g. China etc)

    The report also states that there is insufficient data to confirm any connection between global warming and increases in cyclone activity. It also contains the disclaimer that sea levels could rise or fall. Yet the news media ignores these disclaimers. That is not science once again.
    Science isn't a game of absolute claims, any and all assumptions are subject to change based on weight of the observations or new hypothesis--in fact it's all about probabilities. I think you have religion and science mixed up here.
     

  41. #40 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    The key feature that distinguishes science from religion is the use of the scientific method. The central feature of the scientific method is a reliance on testable predictions.
    Agreed. However, if no specific prediction is made, then the method is worthless. Predicting that the climate is going to change is an example of a worthless prediction. It is like predicting that the stock market is going to fluctuate. No kidding! An example of a religious prediction is that Jesus will come and save us all. There are lack of specifics in that prediction also. See the similarity yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    The hypothesis of global warming is science, because it makes testable predictions (and then tests them).
    LOL! The predictions are a joke! For example, according to the IPCC there is a .66 probability that crop failures will increase over the next 200 years. No matter what the result, they can say they were right. If crop failures decrease, their asses are covered. The part of the report that is particularly unscientific is the leap of faith that any change in the climate must lead to dire consequences. What do they base that on? What evidence? Notice they cover themselves by not giving any specific numbers or even a numerical range for the alleged increases in crop failures and other events that are supposed to increase.

    The report also states that there is insufficient data to confirm any connection between global warming and increases in cyclone activity. It also contains the disclaimer that sea levels could rise or fall. Yet the news media ignores these disclaimers. That is not science once again.
    Some testable predictions:

    ~Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will continue to rise with continued fossil fuel use

    ~Average global temperatures will continue to rise with increased greenhouse gas concentration

    ~Increase in global temperatures will lead to changes in weather patterns, desertiufication, ocean acidification, and de-speciation

    ~Those with a political agenda will attempt to debunk the recommendations of the broader scientific community.


    Etc - and all of these are proving true.
     

  42. #41 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Predicting that the climate is going to change is an example of a worthless prediction. It is like predicting that the stock market is going to fluctuate.
    on the other hand, predicting that there's a 66% likelihood that the stock market will rise to a certain level, if correct, is pretty useful information
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  43. #42 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not sure why you consider this a leap of faith. The types of crops you plant, flood zones you define and built dams to protect from etc are all based on what ever is the normal range of conditions; if you change the climate those baseline assumptions change as well and almost certainly lead to unexpected (aka dire) consequences. It's not a leap of faith--it a well based logical deduction.
    Unexpected = dire? Please provide the evidence! Also, dire is a relative term. How dire? If the results are unexpected, then the logical answer is "we don't know." Therefore it is illogical to conclude that "dire' consequences must happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The reports are pretty detailed-I suggest you start there.
    LOL! News flash: I am a reviewer of the reports. It is obvious to me that I am talking to someone who has not read them. If you had, you would know they only project a .66 probability that crop failures will increase by some unspecified amount. The amount could be .00000001%. Or it might be higher. Who knows? That goes for all the projections with the exception of sea levels. Sea levels could rise or fall according to the IPCC disclaimer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    A 66% probability is a specific number.
    LOL! Pay attention. The non-specific number is the amount of increase, not the probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Interestingly you could pull up the recent Pentagon study that assessed climate change as the number one threat to our national security, above all the usual conventional suspects (e.g. China etc)
    LMAO! What threat? That in 200 years the sea levels might rise .8 meters? Gosh! My great great great great grandkids might have to build their dream home a little further inland from the beach. Of course the enemies of the U.S. will just take a number and wait. LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Science isn't a game of absolute claims, any and all assumptions are subject to change based on weight of the observations or new hypothesis--in fact it's all about probabilities. I think you have religion and science mixed up here.
    No, the media has science and religion mixed up. I simply pointed out that fact. I agree that all conclusions in science are tentative and involve probabilities and margins of error. You don't have to explain that to me. The people you need to explain that to are the blockheads at NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN! They seem to be under the impression that coming doom is a certainty.
     

  44. #43 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Predicting that the climate is going to change is an example of a worthless prediction. It is like predicting that the stock market is going to fluctuate.
    on the other hand, predicting that there's a 66% likelihood that the stock market will rise to a certain level, if correct, is pretty useful information
    Yes, but the IPCC report does not specify any certain levels of increases for most projected events. So your point is moot.
     

  45. #44 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Some testable predictions:

    ~Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will continue to rise with continued fossil fuel use

    ~Average global temperatures will continue to rise with increased greenhouse gas concentration

    ~Increase in global temperatures will lead to changes in weather patterns, desertiufication, ocean acidification, and de-speciation

    ~Those with a political agenda will attempt to debunk the recommendations of the broader scientific community.


    Etc - and all of these are proving true.
    Some more testable predictions:

    Carbon dioxide is good for plant life. Plant life is good for animal life and so on up the food chain. Specific heat coefficients show that a mole of carbon dioxide heats up and cools down more slowly than oxygen. Thus more carbon dioxide will cut down extreme temperatures and weather and make the planet more suitable for life.

    And here is my favorite testable prediction: the majority of scientists do support the fact that the climate changes, that in the past the climate has gotten warmer and cooler. They also agree that there is insufficient data to conclude that there is a nexus between climate change and increased cyclone activity, tornadoes, and loss of antarctic ice. What the consensus is and what scientists agree upon has been grossly distorted by the news media.

    Free radical, you obviously think you're a smart, so try to answer a specific question: How much will crop failures increase by 2099? This question should not be hard for you to answer if there is a consensus view. If you can find the answer, you get a gold star.

    Or if you prefer, answer this question: how much de-speciation will occur by 2099? If you can answer this question from the IPCC reports, then the probability increases that there is nothing wrong with the consensus view or the IPCC reports.


    When you try to answer these questions, pretend you are a scientist and you are conducting an experiment which tests the validity of the IPCC report.
     

  46. #45 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Unexpected = dire? Please provide the evidence!

    ...

    The non-specific number is the amount of increase, not the probability.
    Yep pretty much. If I build a sea wall for a 1:500 year storm event and it becomes a 1:10 year event, that would obviously be dire to that community. If my livelihood depends on corn harvest that increasingly becomes destroyed by drought than that's dire for that industry.

    Like all risk management, it's a matter of changing probability of an event combined with consequences if that event were to occur. It's analogous to insurance. I couldn't tell you what your going to die of even if I know you started smoking 3 packs a day and driving 20 mph over the speed limit--but a good insurance agent could probably give a probability number and project a changed lifespan.

    I thought you were just quibbling at this point..but I'm glad you wrote:

    No, the media has science and religion mixed up. I simply pointed out that fact. I agree that all conclusions in science are tentative and involve probabilities and margins of error. You don't have to explain that to me. The people you need to explain that to are the blockheads at NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN! They seem to be under the impression that coming doom is a certainty.
    You define religion difference than I--most failures in logic have nothing to do with religion. But I agree with you that the media often screws up science reporting--often exaggerating findings.

    On the other hand reporting the equivalent of actuarial tables wouldn't sell news--which is their business--so it's probably not realistic to hope it will change. This is why we need to educate our citizens teaching them about science and to be critical thinkers--it's a different subject but one vital to how both the media reports and how we vote.
     

  47. #46 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Predicting that the climate is going to change is an example of a worthless prediction. It is like predicting that the stock market is going to fluctuate.
    on the other hand, predicting that there's a 66% likelihood that the stock market will rise to a certain level, if correct, is pretty useful information
    Yes, but the IPCC report does not specify any certain levels of increases for most projected events. So your point is moot.
    those projections are available elsewhere if you care to look for it
    so pretending that no indication of the scale of change exists is disingenious
    i don't know the specific reasons why the size of the increase is not included in the IPCC report, but it does not mean that no figures are available
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  48. #47 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Some testable predictions:

    ~Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will continue to rise with continued fossil fuel use

    ~Average global temperatures will continue to rise with increased greenhouse gas concentration

    ~Increase in global temperatures will lead to changes in weather patterns, desertiufication, ocean acidification, and de-speciation

    ~Those with a political agenda will attempt to debunk the recommendations of the broader scientific community.


    Etc - and all of these are proving true.
    Some more testable predictions:

    Carbon dioxide is good for plant life. Plant life is good for animal life and so on up the food chain. Specific heat coefficients show that a mole of carbon dioxide heats up and cools down more slowly than oxygen. Thus more carbon dioxide will cut down extreme temperatures and weather and make the planet more suitable for life.

    And here is my favorite testable prediction: the majority of scientists do support the fact that the climate changes, that in the past the climate has gotten warmer and cooler. They also agree that there is insufficient data to conclude that there is a nexus between climate change and increased cyclone activity, tornadoes, and loss of antarctic ice. What the consensus is and what scientists agree upon has been grossly distorted by the news media.

    Free radical, you obviously think you're a smart, so try to answer a specific question: How much will crop failures increase by 2099? This question should not be hard for you to answer if there is a consensus view. If you can find the answer, you get a gold star.

    Or if you prefer, answer this question: how much de-speciation will occur by 2099? If you can answer this question from the IPCC reports, then the probability increases that there is nothing wrong with the consensus view or the IPCC reports.


    When you try to answer these questions, pretend you are a scientist and you are conducting an experiment which tests the validity of the IPCC report.
    Your questions are poorly phrased, and, frankly, it is not my job to do these calculations for you. It is clear you disagree with IPCC thus my suggestion is that you broaden your search to additional sources.

    For example, there is a wealth of data regarding current extinction rates at http://www.iucnredlist.org/ .
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    william, could you point out what part of the IPCC report says there is a 66% chance of crop failures? What scenario is it referring to? What part of the globe? Or is it a global figure? Does your 66% figure refer to areas that are affected by drought increases? Is it referring to small holdings or large commercial farms? They way you quote it doesn't reveal much information.

    There are several scenarios of future climate change that are modeled, each yielding slightly diferent results. For example, a 1-3 C warming over the next 100 years is predicted (very likely, or >66%) to increase the global net production through agriculture, forestry and livestock, not decrease it. Within that net increase, some areas will see a drop, while others will see a rise depending on location.
     

  50. #49 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    those projections are available elsewhere if you care to look for it
    so pretending that no indication of the scale of change exists is disingenious
    i don't know the specific reasons why the size of the increase is not included in the IPCC report, but it does not mean that no figures are available
    Ironically most are right in the assessment report, including specific example impacts from the past 20 years to illustrate the types of events that might be in the future in quantifiable terms such as specific mortality rates, species impacted etc. The 66%, is actually >66%, which refers to the category of "moderate confidence" of these events, and gives the media and policy makers alike, a quantifiable vocabulary for their science reporting and interpretation of the report. Such confidence intervals are done for each geographic region.
     

  51. #50 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Like all risk management, it's a matter of changing probability of an event combined with consequences if that event were to occur. It's analogous to insurance. I couldn't tell you what your going to die of even if I know you started smoking 3 packs a day and driving 20 mph over the speed limit--but a good insurance agent could probably give a probability number and project a changed lifespan.
    In other words, an insurance agent could tell me by how much my lifespan is likely to increase or decrease depending on my lifestyle. This is not analogous to the IPCC report however. To continue your analogy, the IPCC report tells me that my lifespan is going to increase or decrease, but does not say by how much. The change in lifespan could therefore be insignificant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    I thought you were just quibbling at this point..but I'm glad you wrote:

    No, the media has science and religion mixed up. I simply pointed out that fact. I agree that all conclusions in science are tentative and involve probabilities and margins of error. You don't have to explain that to me. The people you need to explain that to are the blockheads at NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN! They seem to be under the impression that coming doom is a certainty.
    You define religion difference than I--most failures in logic have nothing to do with religion. But I agree with you that the media often screws up science reporting--often exaggerating findings.

    On the other hand reporting the equivalent of actuarial tables wouldn't sell news--which is their business--so it's probably not realistic to hope it will change. This is why we need to educate our citizens teaching them about science and to be critical thinkers--it's a different subject but one vital to how both the media reports and how we vote.
    I agree that people need to be educated because currently the climate change issue is treated as a pagan religion--not science. Hence we come full circle and I am glad to see that you get the point.
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko
    william, could you point out what part of the IPCC report says there is a 66% chance of crop failures? What scenario is it referring to? What part of the globe? Or is it a global figure? Does your 66% figure refer to areas that are affected by drought increases? Is it referring to small holdings or large commercial farms? They way you quote it doesn't reveal much information.

    There are several scenarios of future climate change that are modeled, each yielding slightly diferent results. For example, a 1-3 C warming over the next 100 years is predicted (very likely, or >66%) to increase the global net production through agriculture, forestry and livestock, not decrease it. Within that net increase, some areas will see a drop, while others will see a rise depending on location.
    See the table under section 3.2 of the 2007 IPCC synthesis report:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

    I don't doubt the estimates of the IPCC report could be wrong given the lack of information regarding the alleged increase in crop failures and other events. Such lack of information always raises a red flag with me. Contradictory information also raises a red flag.
     

  53. #52 Re: Global Warming: Science or Religion? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    those projections are available elsewhere if you care to look for it
    so pretending that no indication of the scale of change exists is disingenious
    i don't know the specific reasons why the size of the increase is not included in the IPCC report, but it does not mean that no figures are available
    I am not pretending anything, so feel free to post a link and tell me the section of the report you are refering to. I may have missed something. I am assuming, of course, that YOU are not pretending the information is there.
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    See the table under section 3.2 of the 2007 IPCC synthesis report:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf
    Just curious why you are using the synthesis report when you already know the details you seem to be asking are contained in the Working Group Reports. For example, Working Group II Report, chapter on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" goes into significant detail about how what it considers events, how probability confidence is obtained etc. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf

    Your assertion that " It's analogous to insurance. I couldn't tell you what your going to die of even if I know you started smoking 3 packs a day and driving 20 mph over the speed limit--but a good insurance agent could probably give a probability number and project a changed lifespan," is just plain wrong. The confidence probabilities, definitions of events and how it's put together are far more than you'd get from an life insurance salesmen--certainly enough to begin to shape public policy about regional considerations for future planning to mitigate against risk.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    See the table under section 3.2 of the 2007 IPCC synthesis report:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf
    Just curious why you are using the synthesis report when you already know the details you seem to be asking are contained in the Working Group Reports. For example, Working Group II Report, chapter on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" goes into significant detail about how what it considers events, how probability confidence is obtained etc. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf
    I wasn't able to open that link, but I went to the IPCC web site and found a policy-maker report which at least projects a net 10% in crop failures in Asia. It then goes on to say that crop yields will increase in colder climates and crop yields will decrease in warmer climates. A rather sketchy exposition overall. Since you have read the link you have posted, maybe you can tell us how much crop failure is being projected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Your assertion that " It's analogous to insurance. I couldn't tell you what your going to die of even if I know you started smoking 3 packs a day and driving 20 mph over the speed limit--but a good insurance agent could probably give a probability number and project a changed lifespan," is just plain wrong.
    Are you in the insurance business? If you were I think you would want to have some idea of what my increased chances of mortality are so you can set the right premium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The confidence probabilities, definitions of events and how it's put together are far more than you'd get from an life insurance salesmen--certainly enough to begin to shape public policy about regional considerations for future planning to mitigate against risk.
    It wasn't my analogy to begin with. However, the insurance salesman might have access to statistical data prepared by the insurance company. Unlike the climate racket, the insurance racket has it down to a science--their success and profits depend on it.
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    "I am a reviewer of the reports. It is obvious to me that I am talking to someone who has not read them. If you had, you would know they only project a .66 probability that crop failures will increase by some unspecified amount. "

    You say you are a reviewer of the reports, and than site part of the IPCC reports that you should already know doesn't contain the detailed information. Then you claim you can't see the assessment reports that actually actually contains the details is yet continue to infer that the IPCC reports don't contain any statistical information.

    Excuse me if I'm a bit perplexed by your positions.

    But to answer your question about Asia you'd have to go to chapter 10 of the assessment report which is entirely about Asia. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...-chapter10.pdf

    Just a tidbit of specific projections of effects which are contained in the reference paragraphs usually with their primary reference research papers.

    "Rice yield is projected to decrease up to 40% in irrigated lowland areas of central and southern Japan under doubled atmospheric CO2. [10.4.1.1]"

    "Cereal yields could decrease up to 30% by 2050 even in
    South Asia. In West Asia, climate change is likely to
    cause severe water stress in 21st century. [10.4.1.1]"

    "Net primary productivity of grassland in colder regions of Asia is projected to
    decline and shift northward due to climate change. The limited herbaceous
    production, heat stress from higher temperature and poor water intake due to
    declining rainfall could lead to reduced milk yields and increased incidence of
    diseases in animals. [10.4.1.3]"

    "In Bangladesh, production of rice and wheat might drop by 8%and
    32%, respectively, by the year 2050 (Faisal and Parveen, 2004)."
    (in this case Faisal, I.M. and S. Parveen, 2004: Food security in the face of climate change, population growth and resource constraints: implications for Bangladesh. Environ. Manage., 34, 487-498.)

    There's a lot more including specific projections of flood rates, rainfalls etc. and their respective confidence in the projections.

    Anyone with a basic familiarity with the IPCC reports would know that any claim that they they are "sketchy" and lack statistics is pretty silly.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I am a reviewer of the reports. It is obvious to me that I am talking to someone who has not read them. If you had, you would know they only project a .66 probability that crop failures will increase by some unspecified amount. "

    You say you are a reviewer of the reports, and than site part of the IPCC reports that you should already know doesn't contain the detailed information. Then you claim you can't see the assessment reports that actually actually contains the details is yet continue to infer that the IPCC reports don't contain any statistical information.

    Excuse me if I'm a bit perplexed by your positions.

    But to answer your question about Asia you'd have to go to chapter 10 of the assessment report which is entirely about Asia. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...-chapter10.pdf

    Just a tidbit of specific projections of effects which are contained in the reference paragraphs usually with their primary reference research papers.

    "Rice yield is projected to decrease up to 40% in irrigated lowland areas of central and southern Japan under doubled atmospheric CO2. [10.4.1.1]"

    "Cereal yields could decrease up to 30% by 2050 even in
    South Asia. In West Asia, climate change is likely to
    cause severe water stress in 21st century. [10.4.1.1]"

    "Net primary productivity of grassland in colder regions of Asia is projected to
    decline and shift northward due to climate change. The limited herbaceous
    production, heat stress from higher temperature and poor water intake due to
    declining rainfall could lead to reduced milk yields and increased incidence of
    diseases in animals. [10.4.1.3]"

    "In Bangladesh, production of rice and wheat might drop by 8%and
    32%, respectively, by the year 2050 (Faisal and Parveen, 2004)."
    (in this case Faisal, I.M. and S. Parveen, 2004: Food security in the face of climate change, population growth and resource constraints: implications for Bangladesh. Environ. Manage., 34, 487-498.)

    There's a lot more including specific projections of flood rates, rainfalls etc. and their respective confidence in the projections.

    Anyone with a basic familiarity with the IPCC reports would know that any claim that they they are "sketchy" and lack statistics is pretty silly.
    I guess I should not have been so presumptuous about your reading of the reports. I apologize. Apparently there is some disagreement between the individual IPCC reports. The Synthesis claims there is insufficient data to link global warming and cyclone activity and gives no specific projections for increases of various events including crop failures. Yet another report treats the weather and crop failure issues as though they are a relative certainty. I would think the IPCC would want to avoid misunderstandings and make all the projection tables in their various reports consistent. When I say sketchy, I mean you can read the various reports and not have a clear notion of what to expect in the future. Then there is the question of track record. What is it? What successful predictions have they made in the past? By the year 2000, a lot of bad stuff was supposed to happen due to global warming, and never did.

    "by the end of the (20th) century the most habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic"--Sir David King

    So basically what we have are reports that are all over the place and we have past predictions that have not materialized. I still don't see what any of that has to do with science or the scientific method.


    P.S. I was finally able to open the link you provided:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf

    Under section 2.4 there is an admission of assumptions being made and artificial experiments with arbitrariness and with implausible outcomes. Whatever happened to the good old reality check? I have personally performed actual physical experiments on carbon dioxide that contradict the "assumption" that carbon dioxide causes warming. I would publish my work but I have discovered nothing new. My experiments only confirm what has been known for decades: a mole of carbon dioxide heats up more slowly than oxygen or nitrogen. (See specific heat coefficients for these molecules, on the web or any physics text.) It boggles my mind to think that any scientist worth his salt would rely on assumptions rather than physical experiments or already established science.
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Then there is the question of track record. What is it? What successful predictions have they made in the past? By the year 2000, a lot of bad stuff was supposed to happen due to global warming, and never did.
    What bad stuff are you referring to? A lot of bad stuff is happening, but it's really too early to draw compelling conclusions as of yet that link those bad events to climate change. Climate change is measured in decades not years.


    "by the end of the (20th) century the most habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic"--Sir David King
    Not sure where you read that, but it's a fabrication being sited by the anti-climate crowd. He was comparing millions of years ago to the end of the 21st century based on the absolute worse case green house gas scenario. Here's a writeup about the misstatement, it's backed by the official parliamentary record.
    http://www.daverado.mvps.org/Articles/KingMisquote.htm
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...90/4033002.htm


    So basically what we have are reports that are all over the place and we have past predictions that have not materialized. I still don't see what any of that has to do with science or the scientific method.
    I have no doubt that there are some inconsistencies, but I think the ones you refer to aren't actually inconsistencies once you understand the context of the specific comments. For example North American could on average show a loss of grain production with a combination of with gains in the Northern Plains and more severe losses at the Southern end of the grain belt. This is why it's important to read the the assessment reports as they parse the general statements into regional projections.

    Whatever happened to the good old reality check?
    There's nothing to check against considering we're pushing green house gasses and possibly temperature regimes to levels which the earth hasn't seen in millions of years.

    I have personally performed actual physical experiments on carbon dioxide that contradict the "assumption" that carbon dioxide causes warming. I would publish my work but I have discovered nothing new. My experiments only confirm what has been known for decades: a mole of carbon dioxide heats up more slowly than oxygen or nitrogen. (See specific heat coefficients for these molecules, on the web or any physics text.) It boggles my mind to think that any scientist worth his salt would rely on assumptions rather than physical experiments or already established science.
    The projected warming doesn't have a thing to do with the trivial change on specific heat--it have to do with changing energy balance. Co2 and the other green house trace gases are such a small % of the total atmosphere that doubling them has virtually no effect on specific heat coefficient. Furthermore even a minor increased heat coefficient would have no effect on the average temperatures because they are based on long term energy balances. If you run the wrong experiments without understanding the underlying physics--it's likely you'll reach the wrong conclusions.
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    "by the end of the (20th) century the most habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic"--Sir David King
    Not sure where you read that, but it's a fabrication being sited by the anti-climate crowd. He was comparing millions of years ago to the end of the 21st century based on the absolute worse case green house gas scenario. Here's a writeup about the misstatement, it's backed by the official parliamentary record.
    http://www.daverado.mvps.org/Articles/KingMisquote.htm
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...90/4033002.htm
    Here is the quote from the link you provided:

    Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century.

    Different words but the same idea. Bottom line: 1000 parts per million was not achieved even with increases in consumption of fossel fuels, or it was achieved and the south pole is not the most habitable place for mammals as a result. This is an example of the poor trrack record I am talking about. Even IPCC assement report admits under section 2.4.4 that the likelihood of future extreme events is poorly known. These extreme events include heat waves, storms and flooding.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf

    Under section 2.4.1:

    "...but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities." (In other words, methods used to make climate change projections are not consistent.)

    I would think these admissions pretty firmly establish that the climate change advocates are practicing a cult religion rather than science.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Whatever happened to the good old reality check?
    There's nothing to check against considering we're pushing green house gasses and possibly temperature regimes to levels which the earth hasn't seen in millions of years.
    That is quite a leap of faith (more religion) you make there considering the IPCC's admissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The projected warming doesn't have a thing to do with the trivial change on specific heat
    Translation: science is trivial when it conflicts with the climate change religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    f you run the wrong experiments without understanding the underlying physics--it's likely you'll reach the wrong conclusions.
    I totally agree! You can also reach the wrong conclusions if you don't pay attention to the admissions the IPCC is making.
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    "by the end of the (20th) century the most habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic"--Sir David King
    Not sure where you read that, but it's a fabrication being sited by the anti-climate crowd. He was comparing millions of years ago to the end of the 21st century based on the absolute worse case green house gas scenario. Here's a writeup about the misstatement, it's backed by the official parliamentary record.
    http://www.daverado.mvps.org/Articles/KingMisquote.htm
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...90/4033002.htm
    Here is the quote from the link you provided:

    Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century.

    Different words but the same idea.
    Same idea? First off you're off by an entire century and we using it in the context of things said that didn't come true. You excepted the deliberately altered quote without question and made a false argument. The false statement wasn't part of the IPCC either so again failed to be an example of IPCC inconsistency you seem to be hung up on, but as yet have failed to provide a good example.

    "...but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities." (In other words, methods used to make climate change projections are not consistent.)

    It's also important to realize the IPCC isn't the originator of the science behind the reports, it's a summation of the huge amount of research done by climatologist and other scientific fields scattered across dozens of labs and presented in dozens of peer review publications. The IPCC has no binding "only present information this way," authority; nor should they.

    I would think these admissions pretty firmly establish that the climate change advocates are practicing a cult religion rather than science.
    What? All it mean is there are different methods. There is no doctrine of ways to analyze data, or run models, or interpret their results, or quantify them--nor should there be. We want an entire battery of methods don't we? If anything that's the opposite of an immutable interpretation commonly associated with "religion."


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Whatever happened to the good old reality check?
    There's nothing to check against considering we're pushing green house gasses and possibly temperature regimes to levels which the earth hasn't seen in millions of years.
    That is quite a leap of faith (more religion) you make there considering the IPCC's admissions.
    It's just a statement of fact. There's no good example to measure the reality against because the atmosphere hasn't been like we're going to make it in a very long time. The best we can do is apply the basic physics in models and monitor the results over time as we run the experiment on our own planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The projected warming doesn't have a thing to do with the trivial change on specific heat
    Translation: science is trivial when it conflicts with the climate change religion.
    I hope you really don't think less than 1% specific heat changes can effect energy balances over decades, do you? It wouldn't even be noticed in diurnal (daily temperature ranges). If you want we can run some simple models to illustrate and talk about them. Specific heat only effects the time it takes to get to thermal equilibrium; on a small scales that's measured in minutes to hours and has virtually nothing to do with climate change.

    Also, you're continued use of the term "religion," just distracts and gives the impression you don't want to have a serious conversation.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman deadcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    95
    is it possible gravity is pulling us closer to the sun (very slowly), hence warmer climates? Or as it been proven to be greenhouse gasses?
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I hope you really don't think less than 1% specific heat changes can effect energy balances over decades, do you?
    If we call global average temperature 15 C, it becomes 288 K. 1% of 288 = 2.88 degrees!

    You by chance want to rethink that 1%?

    Solar radiation increases are estimated to be about 0.25% since the 1700's. Can we really expect the sun to remain completely stable?
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •