Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 151 of 191 (539301)
12-14-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by penstemo
12-14-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
penstemo writes:
Hopefully, everyone here realizes that life on our planet would not exist as we know it without greenhouse gases.
This is one of the most typical comments made by deniers. Based on this same logic, I could say that everyone here realizes that life on our planet would not exist as we know it without water. Therefore, the commenter implies, we should all go and live at the bottom of the ocean since water is the source of life on Earth.
Your comment is as ridiculous as saying the sky is blue or snow is white. While true, it adds absolutely no useful information to the debate while giving a vague leaning toward one side of the debate.
Nobody is denying that greenhouse gases were very important to life on this planet. Just like nobody is stupid enough to deny that water is an essential part of life. This doesn't mean that we want to drown in water anymore than we want too much green house gases in the atmosphere.
And let me repeat. The planet doesn't care about global warming. Plants don't care about global warming. Most life on Earth couldn't give a rats ass about global warming. But people do.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 7:10 PM penstemo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 8:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 5204 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


(1)
Message 152 of 191 (539304)
12-14-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taz
12-14-2009 7:33 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
No. You are the one who is ridiculous. I never said I denied that global warming is possibly caused by anthropogenic emissions of carbon compounds, just that I don't think the evidence is strong enough. There are too many variables that haven't been taken into account in the computer climate models for them to accurately describe what is going on.
And let me repeat. The planet doesn't care about global warming. Plants don't care about global warming. Most life on Earth couldn't give a rats ass about global warming. But people do.
Do people really care?
Desertification, caused at least partially by overgrazing, has been going on for centuries. And people care? Both China and India have indicated that they are not likely to cut greenhouse gas emissions. And people care? The people who really care are those who stand to make big bucks from alternate or new technologies that will replace the present ones. Now perhaps that's not all bad since new technologies will have to be implemented some time in the future anyway.
Edited by penstemo, : Added opinion about people caring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taz, posted 12-14-2009 7:33 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-14-2009 9:52 PM penstemo has replied
 Message 164 by RCS, posted 12-21-2009 1:27 AM penstemo has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 153 of 191 (539308)
12-14-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by penstemo
12-14-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
penstemo writes:
There are too many variables that haven't been taken into account in the computer climate models for them to accurately describe what is going on.
I have a simple question. How do you know this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 8:35 PM penstemo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 10:33 PM ZenMonkey has replied

  
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 5204 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 154 of 191 (539310)
12-14-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ZenMonkey
12-14-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
The energy output of the sun (solar radiation) is known to be variable. I don't believe that has been taken into account in the computer models.
Cloud cover is another variable that hasn't been taken into account.
Climate change - Wikipedia
Although much of the variation in model outcomes depends on the greenhouse gas emissions used as inputs, the temperature effect of a specific greenhouse gas concentration (climate sensitivity) varies depending on the model used. The representation of clouds is one of the main sources of uncertainty in present-generation models.
Edited by penstemo, : Added cloud cover

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-14-2009 9:52 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-15-2009 9:38 AM penstemo has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


(2)
Message 155 of 191 (539317)
12-15-2009 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rahvin
12-09-2009 12:22 PM


Re: Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Hey Rahvin,
Thanks for the welcome. Your response was nicely written, thorough, and informative.
Rahvin - Msg 110 responding to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Eye-Squared-R writes:
Aside from hectoring or goading, you seem to portray a high level of knowledge (or possibly confidence) on this topic.
I'm simply a layman who reads a decent amount and has a decent memory, nothing more...
Reading and memory are good. I find it even better to question, analyze, and judge claims based on well established and understood mechanisms with reliable evidence. Otherwise, far too many claims are historically accepted and embraced as factual.
Rahvin - Msg 99 Response to Buzsaw - writes:
We're talking trillions of dollars or more in terms of cost, needing to be spent over a short time as we adapt to the changes. We're talking about millions of lives lost to starvation, disease, or natural disasters. We're talking about poorer coastal regions that don't have the money to erect levies and other structures being simply erased from the map, sometimes entire cultures gone... It's a very large problem
If you’re right, I applaud you for your conviction. If you’re wrong, then you’ve gullibly fallen victim to one of the greatest scientific failures conjoined with self-aggrandized politicians since Lysenkoism. I haven’t proclaimed vast conspiracies of fraud. Conspiracies are impractical and are not necessary to explain events of collectively disastrous behavior - since history is replete with examples of myopic government, stupid groupthink, mankind’s flawed nature, and general incompetence.
In the case of Lysenkoism, there were also volumes of scientific research validating their conclusions. I’m sure there were anomalies noted periodically but hey, the evidence was overwhelming - the case was closed, as Inspector Clouseau would say! For the Socialists in power, the debate was over and those who questioned were clearly incompetent (as judged by those in power). They apparently embraced only that science that strengthened them politically — and the majority of the scientific community under their influence obliged — no conspiracy required!
Dissenting scientists (Lysenko deniers) lost opportunities, freedom, and some lost their lives in prison. Why did the Socialists endorse Lysenkoism with prestigious positions, funding, and perks? Don’t know but my hunch is they perceived that Lysenkoism gave the government more power over their subjects — perhaps a means to motivate the oppressed peasants to work harder (to benefit their children) after the government had confiscated property, possessions, and restricted freedoms (for the good of the people, of course). Lysenko’s evolutionary concepts were exclusively forced by the Soviet Union government in agricultural practices and as a result, at least in part, millions of people starved to death. This politically endorsed and protected Junk Science lasted for well over two decades. We now know their science was terribly flawed despite all the research and evidence from their restricted community at the time. They weren’t dumb but their data were surely selective and their methodologies were surely erroneous. Peer reviews were undoubtedly highly biased or selective. There were no Freedom of Information laws and skeptics were severely constrained to review data or challenge assumption and methodology.
Some in this forum may loudly protest the Lysenko analogy but there are clear similarities to Climategate for anyone willing to consider.
Those researchers able to support the anthropogenic global warming conclusion are surly rewarded accordingly. Those were not cheap run-of-the-mill researchers and politicians in private jets and limousines around Copenhagen.
In light of history, I thought your response in Msg 110 was more reasoned and less dogmatic than Msg 99. Especially since the truth is that neither you nor I know the real impact mankind’s activity has on Earth’s climate. This is because real science, using the scientific method, advances through disproof and cannot prove anything. Whenever anyone like Al Gore says The debate is over! then it’s obvious they don’t understand how science works. In real science, nothing is ever 100% proven. For those who disagree, here’s an explanation: No webpage found at provided URL: http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml
From Dr. Robert K. D. Peterson at Montana State University:
Many people who object to biotech crops argue that the crops should not be allowed to grow in the environment until science proves that they are safe. Others who support biotech crops argue that science has proven that they are indeed safe. However, the concept of proof has no place in science. Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything.
Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.
What is important to recognize here is that none of the results from the studies alone or in combination prove anything. In particular, they do not prove that human health risks from biotech crops are acceptable or that they are safe. Each study tests a hypothesis. For example, the acute oral toxicity in mice study is centered around the initial hypothesis that the dose or doses of protein administered to the mice will not result in mortality or any signs of toxicity. The results from all of the studies are evaluated by the FDA regulator, who makes a decision about the food safety of the biotech crop. The regulator, therefore, utilizes a weight-of-evidence approach when making his decision. The results either provide a weight-of-evidence that the protein is safe to consume or that it is not safe to consume.
And back to our discussion:
Rahvin - Msg 110 Response to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Various hypotheses that I have read include the type of cascade or chain-reaction type effects that I spoke of earlier, where warming eventually results in a greater natural output of greenhouse gasses and accellerates itself.
Rahvin, you didn’t answer whether you believed a runaway condition has occurred on Earth in the past. The suggestion that volcanic eruptions could potentially stop and reverse inferred runaway global warming may have validity but volcanoes also expel a large volume of greenhouse gases. Also, some greenhouse gases may not subside significantly with cooler weather as particulates are cleansed from the atmosphere, and could remain for a longer period. Raindrops coalesce around particulates and sulfate particles (I believe), serving to cleanse the atmosphere of soot fairly effectively.
So how confident are you that the inferred greenhouse gas runaway warming condition would necessarily stop and reverse itself from a volcanic period? My eyebrows are raised slightly as I ponder the various hypotheses — but my knowledge is very limited and I admittedly don’t fully understand all the mechanisms involved that would theoretically reverse a supposed runaway condition.
I know volcanoes can have long-lasting affects but do you (or does anyone) know at what elevation volcanic sulfate particles have actually been observed in Earth’s atmosphere a few days or weeks after a major volcano? Actual measurements would be interesting research. There are certainly many variables since climatologists have difficulty accurately predicting weather ten days out.
I suggest we demand truly open re-evaluations of recent climate science with all data specifically identified, data enhancement explained, and all modeling assumptions/parameters fully published. When that’s done, we may find that mankind’s contribution is not significant to climate change relative to solar activity, other natural cause-effect relationships, and negative feedback loops serving to stabilize the environment. For example, there’s only a given amount of phosphorus on the planet and it necessarily serves to auto-regulate total vegetation and indirectly associated O2/CO2 ratios (at least in part). If Earth’s climate system is as robust as I believe it is and negative feedback loops serve to maintain relative stability, then I support common sense conservation and being smart with our resources. If I’m wrong, and if there is sound research that is convincing — then I’m willing to change my mind but I’d need to see it first.
Thanks Again - and Question Everything -
Eye-Squared-R

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 12-09-2009 12:22 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Eye-Squared-R
Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 12-08-2009


(2)
Message 156 of 191 (539318)
12-15-2009 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taz
12-10-2009 3:53 PM


Hello Taz,
I haven’t alleged a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories generally don’t work in the real world. However, I believe the very best we can say about these Climategate researchers is they used embarrassingly sloppy methodology, demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to assist others in understanding and critiquing their work, and demonstrated a determination to delete data and communications rather than complying with the Freedom of Information law and being open and transparent.
If these folks used good practices in their methodology, then it would be easy, quick, and painless to disseminate their work for FOI requests. The excuse that it consumes too much of their time to respond to FOI requests is strong evidence that their methodology is poor (difficult to defend) and their conclusions may not be well supported.
Folks in other research fields like medicine and engineering meticulously document and openly share their work every day - all day. These global warming folks are not above the rules for good science. If they use some proprietary data, then they should detail exactly what data was used and the source so that others can access it. Also, when data is Value-Enhanced, all assumptions and manipulations must be documented. When researchers in other fields of science get sloppy, careers tend to end rather abruptly.
The climate research folks are no better than researchers in any other field of work. Unless these climate research folks expect everyone will accept their work without question they had better clean house in a hurry — and start from the beginning to provide results that can be replicated and validated with full documentation. It’s not enough to be unconditionally embraced and rewarded by certain politicians. The ignorant masses who know some history and retain a lot of common sense will likely not blindly accept everything they’re told until credibility is perceived and earned.
You may passionately claim that’s unreasonable because AGW deniers are too stupid and we’re all about to fall off the proverbial cliff of climatic disaster, but I respectfully disagree. Transparent integrity with full documentation is required if they expect to have any influence on me or support from me — and millions of other folks. I know researchers are error prone because I’m error prone and so are you — grin! See Lysenko in my response above (Msg 155). Lysenko may have been well intentioned and he actually had arguments that evidently persuaded many. But he was just plain wrong. Crops failed under Lysenko science and people starved to death. Real science is adversarial and documentation must be adequate to replicate results. Flawed or misguided science enforced by well-intentioned politicians can be destructive with perilous consequences to people; e.g. outlaw DDT and save lives in underdeveloped countries?
Insults will not generally win many supporters to your cause Taz. That will likely only induce more Anthropogenic Global Warming Den-eye-yers (as Al Gore would say - with his eye brows furled).
Taz - Msg 100 responding to Jumped Up Chimp - writes:
Again, I really have to ask. Are you just joking around or are you genuinely shameless?
Taz - Msg 113 responding to Jumped Up Chimp - writes:
The accusations arising from the emails are preposterous. Yet, if the scientific community isn't careful, the christian right might actually win the public support to bring about the apocalypse a little sooner.
Help me understand your mind here. What's the mental block that's keeping you from thinking straight?
christian right?
As Lee Corso might say on College Game Day Not So Fast My Friend!
Perhaps you’re not aware Global Warming Petition Project!
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few skeptics remain — skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not skeptics.
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
And that was almost all before Climategate. Undoubtedly, the number of scientist AGW deniers will only swell now!
Conservative Christians Taz? I believe someone else fingered greedy capitalists on this thread who supposedly don’t care about people
If the emails are authentic and correctly represent Phil Jones’ professional integrity and ethical compass, then he’ll necessarily be forced to permanently resign in an effort to restore scientific integrity to the institution. If it’s true that he attempted to unduly influence journals concerning the peer review process, then any work from him in the future will linger in that shadow. Sorry but the details of their work needs to see the light of day — all assumptions, data enhancement, etc.
My inquiry was fairly simple Taz - were you aware of deleted communications before the emails were made public (yes or no)? And what do you suppose were the reasons for this desire among certain research folks to conceal communications?
Taz - Msg 116 responding to Eye-Squared-R - writes:
Ok, let's put your money where your mouth is. I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked buzsaw. Give us some quotes directly from the emails and we can discuss about them. Don't be like buzsaw and keep posting links to blogs that link to other blogs as references. I don't want to see you posting what other people think. Give us direct quotes from the emails and tell us what you think so we can have a real discussion.
I have neither the time nor the desire to sort through needless details of the emails and exchange unproductive tit-for-tats that these forums tend to degrade into. The context is obvious and lurkers can view the Climategate emails from links on this thread. However, I will honor your request and post some items. Hopefully, you will then share for us what you believe to be the desire or motivations of the authors to conceal their work.
Emphasis in bold below are mine.
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
Delete rather than obey the law? Hide behind this? Hide behind that?
Phil Jones writes:
To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: raymond s. bradley, Malcolm Hughes
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Delete as appropriate? Again, I’m not aware of any other researchers in any other field of science who desire to hide their work
Phil Jones writes:
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Everybody delete and pass it on! And there you have it
It appears the term Climategate is appropriate for this history as it truly bears similarities to Watergate. Delete, deny (information), erase One wonders whether Richard Nixon would be impressed with these folks, and they didn’t need executive priviledge!
I believe it’s imperative that everyone involved in climate research immediately define and adhere to research standards for methodology and documentation. That requires and includes what most industries have been doing for many years with a rigorous quality system — basically, do what you say and say what you do (with completely documented comprehensive procedures and requirements).
Taz - Msg 146 responding to Iblis - writes:
This is why I always get cranky on here when I see people who think they're better at the said subject than the experts.
I understand what you’re saying and agree to a certain extent (when the people you mention are not too whippy). However, many scientific breakthroughs have originated from someone not considered an expert in the field. In reality, the experts are sometimes wrong and should be challenged! There are many examples but Alfred Wegener (vilified by the experts for about 50 years) is a good study. In that case, peer review wasn’t worth much as Wegener’s ideas were not accepted until a generation of peer reviewers invested in flawed concepts had passed. A modern day Wegener may be Don L. Anderson Plumes are zombie science.
I suggest a great book if you’re interested and haven’t read it: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn.
As with Lysenko science being financed and clearly driven by a political agenda, I believe the only real Positive Feedback loop with Global Warming science may be that feedback between politicians arranging to fund pre-ordained research conclusions that empower political aspirations with claims to save the world along with near-sighted research folks that are only too happy to oblige for fortune and fame. Conspiracy? Nope — just human nature. And who doesn’t desire to save the planet! It’s certainly a worthy aspiration.
I care about the planet as much as anyone but count me as highly skeptical until there is full transparency with the data and models.
This Loosey-Goosey Misty-Twisty Trust-Me-The-Debate-Is-Over methodology that apparently cannot be adequately explained or duplicated is NOT sound science — It’s irrelevant who they are or how important you think their work is. Until these climate research folks become more professional and transparent with their data, assumptions, and model details — they’re likely losing support by the truckloads daily. If independent assessment of work to date reveals clear bias and philosophically driven science, then anger and distrust will most likely continue to grow until a complete overhaul is instituted with truly effective peer review and transparency.
It appears there are some here with unwavering allegiance so I’ll hang up and listen. Likely return to being an occasional lurker whenever time permits.
Thanks — and Question Everything! -
Respectfully,
Eye-Squared-R
Added by edit:
Thanks for your work enforcing the law Taz.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Appreciation for police work.
Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Removed last thought - off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 3:53 PM Taz has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 157 of 191 (539344)
12-15-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by penstemo
12-14-2009 10:33 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
penstemo writes:
The energy output of the sun (solar radiation) is known to be variable. I don't believe that has been taken into account in the computer models.
No, it's only one of the most basic parameters in any climate model. I'm sure that no-one bothers to pay very much attention to it.
penstemo writes:
Cloud cover is another variable that hasn't been taken into account.
Oh, and cloud cover! You're a genius! It would never have occurred to anyone to study that. I'm sure that clouds aren't a part of anybody's climate model. Those stupid scientists, always overlooking the obvious.
Wait, let's go back to Wikipedia
quote:
All modern AGCMs include parameterizations for:
convection, land surface processes, albedo and hydrology, cloud cover
Huh, whaddya know? Maybe you're mistaking the word "variable" for something that means "we don't know anything at all about this."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 10:33 PM penstemo has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 158 of 191 (539415)
12-15-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-10-2009 6:00 AM


A lot of the complaints I hear about climatologists, are eerily similar to those spouted off about biologists and evolution. I think part of the problem is not really the accessibility of the climate data, because, you can, with a little research find lots of data and research on the subject if your willing to take the time. There are reputable sites out there by scientists who actually work in the field and who provide links and information for the layperson. What many in the public find is that it is much easier to read the opinions of others who, may or may not, have any expertise in the field, especially if that opinion is one that they 'trust'. It usually takes hard work, time, and a moderate amount of education to understand the issues involved, but getting a good understanding of the issues isn't totally inaccessible. There are many good places to start. I know of one science blog who's resident scientist posted videos of his undergrad class lectures for free. Try here for some good primers and the undergrad lectures. They also recommend that people actually read (imagine that) the IPCC report.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "http://" part to the URL. Link still didn't work.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : OK - removed the "www." part - Works now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-10-2009 6:00 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 5:21 PM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 165 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-21-2009 4:58 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 191 (539420)
12-15-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by DBlevins
12-15-2009 5:07 PM


Try here for some good primers and the undergrad lectures.
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage.
maybe:
RealClimate: Frontpage
or
RealClimate: Frontpage
?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by DBlevins, posted 12-15-2009 5:07 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 160 of 191 (539449)
12-16-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taz
12-11-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Here are some
quote:
The hide the decline part could mean anything.
The decline that they are discussing is the 'anamolous' tree ring data which, after about the 1960's was showing ring spacing that would indicate cooler temperatures, even though this didn't match up with the other ground temperature readings.
You can read a nice, relatively short non-technical explanation here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 4:58 PM Taz has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 161 of 191 (539451)
12-16-2009 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by penstemo
12-14-2009 7:10 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
I see that Taz has replied and answered the rest of your post, so I will just point out this quick little tidbit.
quote:
Just because there is a correlation between global temperature increase and an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases does not mean that the latter is necessarily the cause of the former.
Hopefully, everyone here realizes that life on our planet would not exist as we know it without greenhouse gases.
We know that CO2 is a grenhouse gas. We know that it is a natural part of our atmosphere and provides the earth with the ability to have liquid water, etc. Nobody is saying CO2 ISN'T natural. The point being made, and which has many folks alarmed is that: CO2 or CH4 are known to be greenhouse gases and we have put a vast amount of CO2/CH4, and so on, into the atmosphere, and thus, we have most likely created conditions on this planet which have, and will, raise temperatures above what would have taken place naturally, barring some calamitous event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 7:10 PM penstemo has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 162 of 191 (539710)
12-18-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ZenMonkey
12-13-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
ZenMonkey writes:
Buz, quoting someone who left a comment regarding a news story is not evidence, nor is it what anyone has been repeatedly asking for.
Hi Zen. The comment cited raises the pertinent point that warminsts perse, including East Anglia, for whatever reason, withhold data relative to the ongoing debate as to what extent anthropogenic factors play.
Zen writes:
Please produce the actual emails that you believe are the most indicative of deliberate fraud, including the relevant context, and explain why you think that they are so damning.
The emails which have been cited show that information, for whatever reason, has been suppressed, rather than to allow all POVs to be aired and debated openly.
Zen writes:
By the way, the Times Online article that you linked raises some interesting points. The claim in the article - and I'll take it at face value - is that the CRU has destroyed a significant amount of raw data upon which they have based their findings, keeping only their adjusted, compiled figures.
Adjusted for what purpose and destroyed for what purpose? Had they not been destroyed, we would not be having this debate. All would have been out in the open for all to assess.
Zen writes:
In other words, it appears that just maybe scientists do actually know how to take into account things like the different places in which weather sensors have been placed and therefore adjust accordingly, exactly what you seem to be accusing them of not doing. I ask - as some have done here before - why is it that creationists and climate change deniers alike seem to think that scientists are complete idiots in the very fields in which they are experts?
1. What possible purpose would censors measuring the atmosphere be placed close to points of heat exaust have other than to rig the data? Why, in upstate NY did the DEC regulators refuse to reveal the location of censors other than to suppress data from the public and business interests involved?
2. The debate is not so much about climate change. I'm not aware of any significant denying of climate change. The deniers perse are skeptical of imminent danger of anthropogenic CO2. This is where the buck stops relative to redistribution of wealth in the global arena.

ACCU WEATHER's chief hurricane forecaster
is interviewed by Don Imus on his morning show, Dec 11, 09. The UTUBE interview is worth listening to. So ZEN, Joe Bastardi, one of ACCU Weather's chief scientists is indeed a denier. This nonsense that you, Taz and others are touting here on this thread, inferring creationists as science bashing deniers is baseless.
......AccuWeather's chief hurricane forecaster, Joe Bastardi warns it is a bigger threat than global warming. He says the phenomenon is coming, based on three priniciple reasons - 1) Natural reversal of ocean cycles, 2) Low sun spot activity and 3) An increase in volcanic and seismic activity. Bastardi made this case on the Fox Business Network's Dec. 11 "Imus in the Morning" program.
"I have something behind me here called the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,'" Bastardi said. "I'm just as worried that in the next 30 years that we are going back into a period back in the early 1800s which was a mini-Ice Age. We have the natural reversal of the ocean cycles going on. We have very low sun spot activity, increased volcanic activity. I have to tell you something, after this winter in the eastern and southern part of the United States and in Europe - this winter here - a lot of people aren't going to want to hear about global warming because there's already signs that things are turning around."
Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix link

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-13-2009 12:11 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 12-19-2009 2:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 163 of 191 (539747)
12-19-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
12-18-2009 9:54 PM


Re: Climate change man-caused?
Wotcha Buz
Can I ask what you think the motivation for those scientists and politicians who do say that climate change is due to man, is? What are they trying to achieve in your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2009 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 164 of 191 (539958)
12-21-2009 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by penstemo
12-14-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Resident confused scientists?
Both China and India have indicated that they are not likely to cut greenhouse gas emissions. And people care?
Developed countries produce more than 80% of all pollutants. Do people care?
Edited by RCS, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by penstemo, posted 12-14-2009 8:35 PM penstemo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Buzsaw, posted 12-21-2009 9:09 PM RCS has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 165 of 191 (539966)
12-21-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by DBlevins
12-15-2009 5:07 PM


Thanks for your link. I'll check it out when I get a chance. I'm sure you're right that there are some good and reputable sites. The difficult thing for laypeople is knowing which are the best and most reputable sites. This is why I think the government is at fault (at least here in UK - I don't know what other governments are doing). If we really are facing a global catastrophe the laypeople should be given clear evidence and advice directly from the government; we shouldn't be expected to trawl thousands of sites on the internet to work out what's going on. I think this affair has shown a weekness in the value of the internet. Lazy officials use it as a referal instead of collating the evidence themselves and presenting it to the public alongside their policies. I looked at the UK government website again recently and, to be fair, it is a lot better on this issue than it used to be, but they still had links on the government site to people pontificating on YouTube. I don't consider that to be acceptable. If the government can't explain everything themselves, it gives me the impression that they don't really understand the issue, which in turn leads me to suspect that their related policies will either be ineffective or downright devious. Then again, why would I expect anything else!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by DBlevins, posted 12-15-2009 5:07 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024