Not one paper from 1993-2003 denies global warming.

[wacki]

Science magazine analyzed peer reviewed papers only (those are the only ones you should pay attention to). 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

What global warming can do is described here.
http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

[John Feeney]

Just today, as I was flipping past some stations (on my way to NPR /images/graemlins/grin.gif) I heard Limbaugh calling global warming a "bunch of hocus pocus." Well, I didn't hear enough of it to be positive he was talking about global warming, but it sounded like he was. So when I got home I googled his name and global warming. Sure enough, he denies it. What a surprise! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Actually, it's sort of funny, and a little odd that a lot of cons deny global warming, following the lead of big industry which has a vested interest in denying it. It's understandable that some huge, polluting corporation would try to deny it, much as the tobacco companies denied the cigarette-cancer link for so long. But when the average conservative citizen, or even Limbaugh does this, what are we to think - that they fancy themselves little incubating mega-capitalists who will soon *need* to deny what the entire scientific community has been telling them for years so they can launch their own eco-hostile corporate empires? Heh.

[Felix_Nietsche]

There has been global warming since the ice age ended 20,000 years ago (Ahem! before the automobile was invented Ahem!!).

The question is do the activities of man contribute significantly to global warming or is man just a cork in the ocean riding out the climate changes that would occur naturally whether man was on this planet or not.

The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes".

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good you bring that up. They've met that burden, and then some. That's why you will not find legitimate experts in the scientific world questioning whether human activity is a significant factor in the current global warming trend. They pretty much all agree on that now.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been global warming since the ice age ended 20,000 years ago (Ahem! before the automobile was invented Ahem!!).

The question is do the activities of man contribute significantly to global warming or is man just a cork in the ocean riding out the climate changes that would occur naturally whether man was on this planet or not.

The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you need to either pay attention and reread the second sentence in this thread or read the links I posted.


Just incase you are lazy (from a link):
In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

[Felix_Nietsche]

Bull****

Geez....Your claim is so silly you have just completely sabotage the credibility of all your future posts.

For science to advance an hypothesis, experiments have to be designed that will either support or not support the hypothesis. In ideal situations, scientists design experiments where there is a study group and a control group. The variables are applied to the study group and statistics are used to compare if there is any significant differences between the study group and the CONTROL group.

Since there is ONE EARTH it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT like this and it would be silly to have an experiment if the hypothesis is correct the earth gets destroyed.

These "scientists" have conducted several experiments based on HUGE ASSUMPTIONS to try to support their hypothesis. Call it what you want but this is not "science". They would first have to conduct experiments supporting their assumptions. This, they have not done....

These "scientists" can not even rule out the factors which cause the ice age end. This issue alone torpedoes their global warning claims...

Saying they have met the burden of proof is silly and shows lack of understanding on this issue.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Geez....Your claim is so silly you have just completely sabotage the credibility of all your future posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to put this more delicately. Believe me, from what I've seen I'd be worried if you found my posts credible.

[ QUOTE ]
Since there is ONE EARTH it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DESIGN AN EXPERIMENT like this and it would be silly to have an experiment if the hypothesis is correct the earth gets destroyed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid it is you who lacks understanding of the issue. Rather than rattle off a couple of rote intro-to-science bits about how you test hypotheses, you might consider for a moment that legitimate scientific inquiry does not do things in only one narrow way. Groups comparison designs are great where they make sense (e.g., in the behavioral sciences, agriculture...), but are not the end all, or even the best design for many questions. Lots of valid studies, (many of them experimental in design) have been conducted to address questions concerning global warming.

[ QUOTE ]
So what have these "scientists" done conduct a lot of experiments based on HUGE ASSUMPTIONS to try to support their hypothesis. Call it what you want but this is not "science".

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't think the work being done on global warming is science, well, did you even look at the link wacki provided? Have you ever read a journal article on on global warming? If so, did you understand what you were reading? This is hardly a debatable issue.

[wacki]

So far there is only one thing you have been right about. The fact that there is only one planet and therefore we can not have a control when experimenting with the earth on a global scale. As for everything else, you are completely wrong.

Scientific peer review journals are undergo incredible amounts of scruteny. And their experiments have had controls. Dr. Melillo has a soil warming experiment where he has laid miles and miles of heating coil in a plot of land and analyzed the flow of Nitrogen and Carbon through the soil. He compares the heated soil to the non heated soil while having every possible control. This experiment may seem silly at first, but if you understood the importance of this carbon cycle, a cycle that may end up failing, you will realize that Melillo's soil warming experiments are not only important, but his results are the product of bulletproof methodology.

Feel free to go here and search for "climate change". You will see these papers are very well done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

[Cyrus]

I find slightly amusing the way names get distorted, if not totally robbed of meaning, in politics!

In Mexico the party that ruled the country for some ninety years is called "Institutional Revolutionary Party". Talking about covering all bases!

Conservatives, in western democracies, have taken their name from the supposed upholding of "traditional values", the conservation of those values, that they represent. Those values are mainly patriotism, honour, loyalty to the leader, honesty, etc etc. However, in matters of the environment, which is our ultimate country, the Ur-patria, conservatives do not opose its wanton and mindless exploitation.

...Nowdays, they are also in favor of liberal spending too, in both senses of the word, as can be witnessed by the carefree attitude of the Republican Party towards budgets, deficits, over-runs, and all that "bunch of hocus pocus".

[MMMMMM]

What I think you should try to research next (if you are so inclined;-)) is what percentage of global warming is caused by human activities.

As I recall from a non-partisan article within the last year:

1. Global warming has been taking place.

2. Global warming also correlates highly with increased sunspot activity, both in time-frames of decades/centuries and in time-frames of many thousands of years.

3. We are currently at a very high point for sunspot activity, something like the highest point in 40,000 or 70,000 years (again, if I recall; I only read the article once and it was many moons ago).

4. This suggests that increased sunspot activity may be causing (or is related to) some significant amount of the global warming we are experiencing. The main question is, how much?


Those who hold that increased human activity/population does NOT contribute AT ALL to global warming, have adopted an unsupported position, in my opinion. IMO it is pretty clear that global warming is occurring, and that human activity is contributing to some portion of it.

Those however who presume that human activity is the principal contributing factor to global warming, are also taking an unscientific approach.

I don't know just how you would go about researching what the chief cause of global warming is. That, along with identifying the sceondary and tertiary causes, and in what proportions, would seem to me the very important questions.

[ACPlayer]

The links posted by Wacki lead one to the conclusion that human activity is the principle cause of global warming.

In the pursuit of scientific research how about giving us a peer reviewed link that links the sunspot activity with global warming. Would be better than conjecture.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes"

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two issues: 1) the scientific issue - i.e. can we prove that global warming is occuring and, if so, if it is cased to some extent by the activities of man; 2) faced with the potential of global warming caused by man what, if any, policy changes should we make. The scientific issue surely requires the burden of proof to be on those advocating that man is the cause of global warming. I am relatively ignorant on the science of it all and will defer to others to argue that point.

As to the policy decision, it isn't really just a "burden of proof is on xyz" argument. It is more a cost-benefit analysis. The costs of continued global warming (even if there is only a 50% chance that it is real) is huge. Further the costs of corrective measures are relatively low when compared with their potential benefits (both in terms of their effects on global warming and the shift away from a dependence on finite and shrinking resources.)

[MMMMMM]

Here are four excerpts with links.

I don't have a "view" on this one way or the other. I just think the tendency of many laymen to automatically ascribe the warming, in its entirety or greatest part, to human activity, is an unscientific approach. Therefore I am providing these links to stimulate "thinking outside the box".

Also, it is not my purpose to research this myself. Wacki said he was doing research on it, so I suggested an additional area that might be worthy of emphasis.



Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 July, 2004, 16:07 GMT 17:07 UK
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

YALE News Release
CONTACT: Cynthia L. Atwood #131

For Release: Jan. 14, 1997

Yale and NASA Astronomers Predict Decline in Sunspots, Which Could Bring Cooler Weather, Fewer Electronic Disruptions

New Haven, CT -- Fewer sunspots will erupt on the sun's surface during the next decade, indicating an unexpected decrease in the activity of magnetic fields that churn the sun's hot gases, Yale University and NASA astronomers predict. The milder "space weather" -- marked by a decrease in magnetic storms, cosmic rays and ionspheric disturbances -- could bring cooler temperatures on earth, fewer power blackouts and less interference with radio waves.

The optimistic prediction, which contradicts that of many other scientists, will be reported Jan. 14 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Toronto, Canada, by Kenneth Schatten of Goddard Space Flight Center/NASA in Greenbelt, Maryland. He and Sabatino Sofia, chairman of the Yale astronomy department, inferred the magnitude of magnetic fields just below the sun's surface from observations with solar telescopes in Stanford and Big Bear, California.

The researchers noted that the sun's magnetic activity, which waxes and wanes in cycles lasting about eleven years, is as notoriously unpredictable as the weather. "During the last 50 years, the sun has displayed more activity than it has since Galileo first observed sunspots in the early 1600's," said Professor Sofia. "Thus, if the next solar cycle shows a downward trend, it could reverse the general rise in activity which has occurred during the past 400 years."

Variations in solar activity have been linked to long-term climate changes on earth, such as the global phenomenon known as the "Little Ice Age" in the 1600's, which was triggered by a century of little solar activity. The relatively abrupt cooling froze the Thames River and caused glaciers around the world to advance. At the other extreme, increased solar activity during the 11th and 12th centuries may have triggered global warming that enabled the Vikings to inhabit Greenland, which they were forced to abandon when solar activity waned, Dr. Schatten said.

http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~dra/sunspots.html

The red curve (on graph in linked page) illustrates the solar activity, which is generally increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle lenght has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Even the finer structures in the two curves have similar appearances.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

Greenhouse gases are responsible for less than half the rise in global temperatures over the past century, a scientist with the European Space Agency says. Physicist Paal Brekke says natural processes involving changes in the Sun could have at least as powerful an effect on global temperature as increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd020801g.html

[RayGarlington]

I'm afraid you let your zeal get the better of you here.

Your first reference is to an essay published in Science magazine and written by professor in the Department of History. She is not directly associated with meteorology or climate research. It is unlikely that this essay was reviewed.

your "what global warming can do" link is irrelevant if warming does not approach the levels assumed by the authors. Generally, observed warming has been a factor of 5 to 10 below what has been predicted by climate models. Actual warming as measured by satellites since 1979 is .079 degrees C per decade. Also, this is not a peer-reviewed article either, but rather a 'news' article written by a collection of concerned geologists. I'll point out that the average geologist does not know much about the atmosphere or climate models. Also, in case you were unaware of this, the UK is a hot-bed of politically engineered 'science'.

It would be nice if climate science could advance free of political forces. I might as well wish for $1,000,000 while I'm at it.

[ACPlayer]

.

[Zeno]

In this thread, in my opinion, M and Ray made some excellent and significant points.

We have had similar discussions on this subject in the passed and I made a few posts on it.

Some main issues that are exemplified in this debate is the constant struggle and interaction of science with society, policy makers, government funded research, business and industry (and their funded research), each countries legislative bodies, international organizations, and 'environmental' organizations.

Each have agendas, causes, vested interests, etc. in what 'pure scientific research' can and cannot say about 'global warming’ (to put it in the proper perspective a better term would simply be climate change).

In the cacophony of hyperbole within this plethora of competing interests the science community (as opposed to the pseudoscience hacks) is usually pushed aside and drowned out, until and/or unless matters become extremely dire.

To outline my best educated guess –

The earth, which is currently in a natural warming cycle, is being influence by human activity in various ways. Part of this activity is contributing to the natural warming cycle underway. How much of a contribution this is, at present, is unknown. We can make some estimates as to how much of a contribution, but the globe is a very large and complex engine with still many unknowns and things that we only have a hazy idea about. So the estimates have large error bars. The error bars may or may not be narrowed down in the foreseeable future. We live on a planet and in a universe that we are in our infancy of trying to understand.

People of all political parties or persuasions will use ‘global warming’ in various ways to push whatever cause they happen to be waving in front of the public or raving about to the throbbing masses over the airwaves of imbecility or spewing out in heaps of bombastic ballyhoo in the print media.

It is ‘always’ assumed that global warming is bad. This is a silly idea if placed in a pure objective and rational outlook of mankind’s place in the universe. But it would be futile to try and pursue this idea further but I will go ahead anyway.

The human species will become extinct. This is a fact. How and when is, of course, unknown (or we last until the sun goes nova then it is, more or less, known). Perhaps the species itself will contribute to its own demise. Entirely possible but the exact probability is again, unknown. Since humans are in a phase of effecting the planet we live on in a global manner we must adapt to the changes we are causing and find ways to live with those changes in a manner that will be advantageous to the most members of the species. I sincerely doubt the above rational statement would ever be used as a basis for the implantation of a sound policy to deal with climate change.

‘Global warming’ is good. Discuss that statement.

-Zeno

[John Cole]

John,

I would hate it if you have to inform me "indelicately" about any matter.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Your first reference is to an essay published in Science magazine and written by professor in the Department of History


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. She’s in the Department of History and Science Studies Program. That should make her rather familiar with the sciences and the scientific method, if not climate research per se.

[ QUOTE ]
She is not directly associated with meteorology or climate research.


[/ QUOTE ]

But that does not seem at all relevant to the study she did. She merely counted up the percentages of the time 928 studies endorsed or disagreed with the consensus position in one way or another. Very little if any meteorology or climate research background should be needed for that.

[ QUOTE ]
It is unlikely that this essay was reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I’m not familiar enough with Science magazine to know. Why do you think so? In any event, you don’t just fire a sloppily done study to Science in order to promote your bias and expect it to be published without being subjected to some serious scrutiny.

[John Feeney]

M -- I don’t have a handy link to put it in a nutshell, but by combining a few comments in the Science essay wacki linked to, and one or two in this EPA link (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html), it sounds like the scientific consensus is that the human contribution to global warming/climate change is very significant. This is in line with what I’ve seen in perusing the subject over time.

The author of the Science article provides a quote from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), assembled by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme:

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

She points out that the National Academy of Sciences concurs.

Add to that this comment from the EPA, in a section in their site on global warming, in a section titled, “What’s Known for Certain?”:

There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

Note that this is the Bush EPA. If anything, I would expect their bias to run toward discounting the human contribution. (Maybe I’m wrong there?)

These comments suggest that the consensus is that the human contribution is quite significant. No, they can’t put an exact percentage on it, and your links about sun spot activity could indeed be a mitigating factor. But as Elwood points out, the necessary level of certainty to justify serious policy changes may not be as high as one might think anyway.

Of course, Zeno may be right as well. Global warming may be good. I don’t just mean the benefits for the rain forests, and temporary benefits for some crops in some areas, all of which are expected to be overwhelmed by the inevitable harms. I mean the Zenoian sense that hastening the inevitable may be a good thing, sort of like ripping the bandage off to “get it over with,” I guess.
/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid you let your zeal get the better of you here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, everything I have said is 100% factual. I challenge you to find one sentence of mine that was placed before your post that is anything but factual.

[ QUOTE ]
Your first reference is to an essay published in Science magazine and written by professor in the Department of History. She is not directly associated with meteorology or climate research.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? Her data is correct, that's all that matters.

[ QUOTE ]
It is unlikely that this essay was reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is not true. All papers published by Science are reviewed before they can be published. Even if it wasn't reviewed it is published in a very prestigous journal and will recieve a lot of attention/scrutiny. Science, Cell, and Nature are the elite scientific journals. I challenge you to find an article that debunks this one that is published in any peer review journal. There are hundreds of them, so NCBI will be your best bet.

[ QUOTE ]
your "what global warming can do" link is irrelevant if warming does not approach the levels assumed by the authors.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would use the word inconsequential instead of irrelevant, but you are correct if the earth doesn't increase by 3-5 degrees C in temp. However, that is a very big if.

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, observed warming has been a factor of 5 to 10 below what has been predicted by climate models.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Go ahead and try to find a warming model that was published by NOA, WHOI, MBL Ecosystems, Harvard, Yale or any other notable institution. The ground rules are only principle investigators count, no assistant scientists. The model has to of been written by an author that has papers published in Science, Cell, or Nature. Only one paper as a primary author is needed to qualify. Seriously where are you getting your information? Off by a factor of 5 or 10? Do you have any idea how huge of a difference that is? The ocean has risen about 20 cm in the last century. That means the models (according to you) would of predicted a 2 meter increase in ocean depth???!??!?

[ QUOTE ]
Actual warming as measured by satellites since 1979 is .079 degrees C per decade. Also, this is not a peer-reviewed article either, but rather a 'news' article written by a collection of concerned geologists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think you could provide a link? Lots of data and no support. No posts from junk websites like www.globalwarming.org (http://www.globalwarming.org) please.

By the way your information is wrong.

The rate of temperature increase since 1976 has been over 0.15°C/decade.
source:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/066.htm

See that is how you post facts. Please don't make stuff up, I hate fact checking bogus stats especially when there is no sources.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll point out that the average geologist does not know much about the atmosphere or climate models.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, now I am loosing much faith in your knowledge. Geologists spend a lot of time studying ocean and atmospheric currents. I took a 8 weeks class my freshman year in geology and that is all we studied. The largest private employer of geologists is the oil industry. Geologists are very interested and knowledgable when it comes to the carbon cycle.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, in case you were unaware of this, the UK is a hot-bed of politically engineered 'science'.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, if you want technical articles from Science, Cell, or Nature I will be happy to post them for you. I posted that article because it not only seemed accurate but is much easier to read than scientific journals which can be amazingly difficult to read. The article I posted earlier in this thread is a very rare exception.


[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if climate science could advance free of political forces. I might as well wish for $1,000,000 while I'm at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's why you stick to peer review journals. Junk science doesn't make it into the elite journals. If it ever does, they are very quick to point out the errors.

[John Feeney]

Yep, if you didn't know better you might assume conservatives and conservation went hand in hand. Then you'd be thrown into complete confusion if you saw Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s book, _Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy_. Oh well, let's all go pitch in and help with some oil drilling in the arctic. There's nothin' up there anyway.

[wacki]

John Feeney good posting, keep up the good work. BTW, my "So far there is only one thing you have been right about." post was directed towards Felix_Nietsche not you.

Zeno, pick up the recent National Geographic on global warming. You will then understand why it is bad. Your post isn't really worthy of a response.

MMMMMM, I just talked to some professors about the sunspots. Their response "there is very little proof of that, very little proof.". I will try and find some articles on it, it may take me a while to research. I am at IU right now, so I don't have direct contact to my WHOI and NOAA friends that are literally doing all of these experiments, but there are some very knowledgable people here none the less. I will try and see what I can find out.

[wacki]

Cyrus, I must say that you had a pretty point in your post. The ironic thing is that the solution to this problem would be extremely benificial to conservatives. If we had an Apollo style program researching alternative energy it would put America back on the map in the largest industry in the planet, it would decrease our dependence on foreing oil which would reduce terrorism, and it would create a plethora of technologies which would fuel our economy and business for years to come. All of these are very benificial to the conservative ideals. The left would be happy because the environment would be saved as well. The mentality of the people who are in denial makes no sense to me. There is not hing to be afraid of, we might have a very benificial way out of this problem.

On the other hand, Bush's return to the moon is more important than this..... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Oh well, atleast NASA will be developing fuel cells and other vital technologies that will be used in the future. So I have no doubt there are bigger wastes.

[MMMMMM]

You should not have much trouble researching it;-)--the first page of Google was full of links; it took me very little time to cull those linking sunspots and global warming. In fact those were not only all from the first page, but from the first half of the first page, if I recall;-) Moreover, many of those links cite scientists.

I also believe the data showing correlation of sunspot activity to global temperatures is very strongly correlated. Maybe strong correlation isn't "proof", but it isn't meaningless, either.

I would also suppose that human contribution to global warming is probably quite significant. Still, it is very important, I believe, to approach such things as rigorously and comprehensively as possible, as scientifically as possible--especially if humans are going to run about crafting laws and protocols with deep social, political, and economic impacts.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno, pick up the recent National Geographic on global warming. You will then understand why it is bad. Your post isn't really worthy of a response.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've let my National Geographic subscription expire and I no longer get the magazine - I can't keep up with all the magazines and periodicals I currently get as is. And National Geographic is hardly an unbiased magazine, thought overall it is one of the best layman magazines around.

However, you are, in my opinion, too keyed up on this subject and fail to look at the overall issue in a calm and objection manner. Humans have embarked on an experiment with their world. What the outcome of that experiment will be is unknown but certain parameters can be predicted with a certain amount of accuracy, others can't - at least not yet.

Models are inherently bias because of lack of adequate data, parameters, unknowns, and the amount of educated guess work that must go into them. And the more complex the model the larger amount of uncertainty it will have. I recently worked on a model that tried to predict the amount of radioactivity that may have been transported from ground surface into a fire plume downwind to residences at various distances from source. So I do know what I’m talking about. This was a very uncomplicated model compared to one that would try and predict the amount of overall global temperature rise some distance into the future, let alone the consequences of that rise. In additon, thinking that the earth is supposed to have a ‘normal temperature’ is silly and completely unsound thinking. And going ‘back’ is the wrong way to think about this problem.


The overall trend of upward global temperature is of concern to humans. But to react to this unintentional experiment in the manner in which you have presented in this thread is not very objective, in my opinion. A calm and dispassionate manner about this is what is needed. And that is probably not what will happen. In fact – I would bet my life on it.

We may implement policies that actually do more harm than good, overall. We must put recourses into dealing with the probable effects of the warming and adapt to it in order to survive, while at the same time making an effort to reduce emissions that contribute to increases in temperature without taxing the infrastructures needed to sustain the six billion people that live on this planet. That would be a good starting point. This will constantly change on this front - just like the 'earth's temperature'.

I enjoyed your defense of Geologists in your pervious post probably much more than you could ever image.

-Zeno

[John Feeney]

John -- Neither chary nor brutish have I ever had to be with you. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chary... heh.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh well, let's all go pitch in and help with some oil drilling in the arctic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not just the Americans; the cheese heads up north have some fabulous diamond mines going in the Canadian Shield (and also a lot of oil and gas stuff). Great money and you get to chew up the earth for diamonds - many of which go into drill bits for exploratory drilling for oil and minerals. I almost applied for a job up there about two years ago. But I passed it by; I’m getting too old for a rambling lifestyle anymore.

We have to plunder John; it’s the nature of our species and how we survive. It may hasten our inevitable demise but we get to have fun on the decent into oblivion. I wouldn't have it any other way.

-Zeno

[wacki]

Much better, I can actually respect this post Zeno.

[ QUOTE ]
And National Geographic is hardly an unbiased magazine, thought overall it is one of the best layman magazines around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, and that is why I recommended it for you. You have to realize that at that time I had no clue as to your educational background.

[ QUOTE ]
However, you are, in my opinion, too keyed up on this subject and fail to look at the overall issue in a calm and objection manner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please highlight sentences that I have typed that make you believe this. MMMMMM has provided many links and arguements of the other side. Do you not think I responding to him in a rational manner?

[ QUOTE ]
We must put recourses into dealing with the probable effects of the warming and adapt to it in order to survive, while at the same time making an effort to reduce emissions that contribute to increases in temperature without taxing the infrastructures needed to sustain the six billion people that live on this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please tell me if the Apollo style program that both the Nobel Laureate Smalley and I (as well as numerous other people) are promoting would not satisfy this arguement. I am not pushing Kyotto (which I think is a scam), I am pushing technology developement.

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed your defense of Geologists in your pervious post probably much more than you could ever image.

[/ QUOTE ]
From this, I can only guess that you are a geologist? If that is the case, I would be happy to have a discussion with you. Feel free to post as many articles as you please from peer review journals.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been global warming since the ice age ended 20,000 years ago (Ahem! before the automobile was invented Ahem!!).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's been around an awful lot longer than that

[ QUOTE ]
The question is do the activities of man contribute significantly to global warming or is man just a cork in the ocean riding out the climate changes that would occur naturally whether man was on this planet or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question is are we/natural causes/whatever destroying the world we live on and therefore our very existence and (its a two-parter) can we do anything about it?

[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of course until they do this to your satisfaction the environment wouldn't do anything silly like bury Manhatten (not to mention a fairly large % of the US and the rest of the worlds land mass) under water say, or maybe cause severe weather systems to become more frequent and violent, (except this is already happening of course, and yes, scientists have measured it).

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
From this, I can only guess that you are a geologist?

[/ QUOTE ]

MS is Geology from ASU in 1991. But let's toss that into the trash bin. I hate talking about myself.

I come off badly because I'm basicly a misanthrope.
[ QUOTE ]
Please highlight sentences that I have typed that make you believe this. MMMMMM has provided many links and arguements of the other side. Do you not think I responding to him in a rational manner?


[/ QUOTE ]

I concentrated on the title of your posts instead of the content to draw what were, I regert, improper conculsions. I apologise.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not pushing Kyotto (which I think is a scam), I am pushing technology developement.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.

I found some info on Smalley and his discovery of buckyballs (Buckminsterfullerenes), complex carbon atoms shaped like geodestic domes for which he won the Noble Prize. He is called a nanotechnologist and he has very broad interests which is not suprising at all. The support of technological development to help solve this problem of global warming is, in my opinion, sound and would bear the most fruit.

From the article by the geologists Jan Zalasiewicz that you posted that outlined some options to stem global warming:

[ QUOTE ]
a large-scale switch to civil nuclear power. This has the benefit of being proven technology. We are aware of the problems, and current public unpopularity of this route, but we consider the dangers posed by global warming to be orders of magnitude greater than those likely to be caused by the controlled use of nuclear power. This energy source, additionally, could lie at the heart of future hydrogen-based transport systems.


[/ QUOTE ]


I posted about this need a long time ago when the Bush administration was trying to change regulations and reduce red tape to make the construction of Nuclear power plants easier.

But that is neither here or there. The John cole's and John Feeney's of the world will still cry foul and object. Right guy's - or am I wrong in this assumation? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno : We have to plunder; it’s the nature of our species and how we survive

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, like most things, it's a question of measure. "Plunder" adequately -- and it's alright; in fact, it is "recommended". Plunder indisciminately -- and it's digging your own (our own) grave.

I would humbly, but very, very strongly, recommend the primer " Ecological Imperialism (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521546184/qid=1102576246/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/103-4156264-2018264?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)". Don't worry your clubs 'n diamonds -infested li'l heads, it's not about politics.

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki : At least NASA will be developing fuel cells and other vital technologies that will be used in the future

[/ QUOTE ]

Just one thing: Serendipity is something one actually looks for in science's "great march forward". In other words, we fund a research program to discover X and, in the process, we discover Y, perhaps also Z - and maybe not X at all! But we cannot base our future on serendipity!

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki : Bush's return to the moon is more important

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayh yes, just let me hold that picture in my head for a day.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

"All papers published by Science are reviewed before they can be published."

I think he meant peer reviewed. This is different than getting reviewed by the editors, although, in the case of that magazine, the editors might be scientists too.

The articles are not supposed to be peer reviewed a priori, as far as I know.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The articles are not supposed to be peer reviewed a priori, as far as I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they normally are, and the process is amazingly anal and meticulous. BTW, you are correct I did mean peer reviewed.

[wacki]

Zeno, please watch this video. It is in my opinion the most important video curruently in existance.

http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv

from the site:
http://smalley.rice.edu/

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM has provided many links and arguements of the other side

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a note: I don''t really think the links, or the point I was trying to make, are "of the other side". I'm really just advocating broad research and comprehensive analysis.

[wacki]

That is not only understood, but welcomed. Right now I do not have access to the resources that I normally have access to research this subject. It will not be until april that I will be in a position to truly review material on this subject matter by interviewing people involved in the research. Until then I am limited to searching NCBI which is both painfull and slow.

I must ask, what the hell are you doing up at 5:30 in the morning? My excuse? I'm drunk after a very intense couple of weeks worth of research.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I must ask, what the hell are you doing up at 5:30 in the morning? My excuse? I'm drunk after a very intense couple of weeks worth of research.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sleeping hours are rather irregular--you might say they are TommyAngelo-esque (although I play almost entirely online).

[RayGarlington]

OK Wacki,

You have a lot of enthusiasm, but you should really calm down a little on this topic. First climate science is very complex and highly contaminated by politics. Also, your confidence in the ethics of scientists seems excessive. These are just people after all.

We won't solve the Global Warming problem here, but I'll just say essays are not journal articles. Surveys of journal articles are more like journalism than science, and the biases of the authors are a real problem here.

Concerning the data. There are several data sets used. Among atmospheric temp measurements you have the network of ground 'thermometers', balloon data and satellite data. Generally, the US ground data = balloon data = satellite data. When you fold in data from other (less well developed & controlled) land sites you get a divergence between the satellite/balloon data and the land data. Here is a link for satellite data and some summary data for you to work with: (you should be able to cut & paste this into your spreadsheet to confirm the decadal temperature trend I gave you earlier. By the way, the IPCC uses the suspect land data temperature measurements. Not sure why they do that to the exclusion of more accurate data, but doing so does show a nice warming spike. Politics?

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html

MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE LT5.1

ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN
YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH NO.DAYS GLOBAL NH SH DAYS
1978 12 -0.177 -0.120 -0.234 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 42.
1979 1 -0.124 -0.242 -0.005 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 73.
1979 2 -0.119 -0.175 -0.063 28. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 101.
1979 3 -0.116 -0.105 -0.128 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 132.
1979 4 -0.146 -0.161 -0.132 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 162.
1979 5 -0.143 -0.219 -0.068 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 193.
1979 6 -0.131 -0.172 -0.091 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 223.
1979 7 -0.028 0.085 -0.141 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 254.
1979 8 -0.119 -0.075 -0.162 31. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 285.
1979 9 0.041 0.018 0.064 30. -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 315.
1979 10 0.151 0.105 0.196 31. -0.087 -0.104 -0.070 346.
1979 11 0.030 0.083 -0.022 25. -0.075 -0.083 -0.066 360.
1979 12 0.128 0.160 0.096 31. -0.048 -0.059 -0.038 360.
1980 1 0.053 -0.098 0.204 25. -0.035 -0.046 -0.024 354.
1980 2 0.143 0.065 0.221 29. -0.013 -0.026 0.000 354.
1980 3 0.038 -0.176 0.252 31. 0.000 -0.032 0.033 354.
1980 4 0.169 -0.008 0.346 30. 0.027 -0.019 0.074 354.
1980 5 0.181 0.053 0.309 31. 0.055 0.004 0.106 354.
1980 6 0.119 0.058 0.180 30. 0.076 0.023 0.129 354.
1980 7 0.087 0.041 0.132 31. 0.086 0.019 0.153 354.
1980 8 0.149 0.047 0.252 31. 0.110 0.031 0.190 354.
1980 9 0.204 0.070 0.339 30. 0.123 0.034 0.212 354.
1980 10 0.106 0.161 0.052 31. 0.120 0.039 0.200 354.
1980 11 0.138 0.150 0.127 30. 0.127 0.044 0.209 359.
1980 12 -0.045 -0.070 -0.020 30. 0.113 0.026 0.200 358.
1981 1 0.153 0.149 0.156 31. 0.121 0.045 0.196 364.
1981 2 0.196 0.098 0.295 28. 0.124 0.047 0.201 364.
1981 3 0.159 0.163 0.155 25. 0.134 0.075 0.193 358.
1981 4 0.023 0.098 -0.052 21. 0.124 0.083 0.166 349.
1981 5 0.065 0.093 0.037 31. 0.114 0.087 0.141 349.
1981 6 -0.010 0.044 -0.065 30. 0.103 0.086 0.120 349.
1981 7 0.063 0.036 0.091 31. 0.101 0.085 0.117 349.
1981 8 0.072 0.109 0.036 23. 0.095 0.090 0.099 341.
1981 9 0.043 0.001 0.086 30. 0.080 0.084 0.077 341.
1981 10 0.005 0.054 -0.043 31. 0.071 0.074 0.068 341.
1981 11 0.011 0.019 0.003 30. 0.060 0.063 0.057 341.
1981 12 0.149 0.127 0.170 31. 0.077 0.080 0.074 342.
1982 1 -0.077 -0.198 0.043 31. 0.056 0.049 0.064 342.
1982 2 -0.071 -0.171 0.029 28. 0.034 0.027 0.042 342.
1982 3 -0.214 -0.342 -0.086 31. 0.003 -0.016 0.022 348.
1982 4 -0.110 -0.019 -0.202 30. -0.007 -0.023 0.008 357.
1982 5 -0.133 -0.271 0.005 31. -0.025 -0.054 0.005 357.
1982 6 -0.093 -0.233 0.046 30. -0.032 -0.078 0.015 357.
1982 7 -0.238 -0.228 -0.248 31. -0.058 -0.100 -0.015 357.
1982 8 -0.158 -0.266 -0.050 31. -0.074 -0.128 -0.021 365.
1982 9 -0.132 -0.232 -0.032 24. -0.088 -0.145 -0.031 359.
1982 10 -0.212 -0.327 -0.096 31. -0.107 -0.178 -0.035 359.
1982 11 -0.108 -0.397 0.181 30. -0.117 -0.213 -0.020 359.
1982 12 0.010 -0.030 0.049 31. -0.129 -0.227 -0.031 359.
1983 1 0.150 0.159 0.141 31. -0.109 -0.196 -0.022 359.
1983 2 0.007 -0.133 0.147 28. -0.103 -0.193 -0.013 359.
1983 3 0.274 0.205 0.344 31. -0.061 -0.146 0.024 359.
1983 4 0.183 0.013 0.353 30. -0.036 -0.143 0.070 359.
1983 5 0.196 -0.005 0.396 31. -0.008 -0.120 0.104 359.
1983 6 -0.079 -0.182 0.024 30. -0.007 -0.116 0.102 359.
1983 7 0.127 0.135 0.118 31. 0.025 -0.084 0.134 359.
1983 8 0.088 0.096 0.079 31. 0.046 -0.053 0.145 359.
1983 9 0.084 0.035 0.133 30. 0.061 -0.034 0.156 365.
1983 10 -0.087 -0.161 -0.014 31. 0.071 -0.020 0.163 365.
1983 11 -0.025 0.039 -0.089 30. 0.078 0.016 0.141 365.
1983 12 -0.296 -0.304 -0.287 31. 0.052 -0.007 0.112 365.
1984 1 -0.301 -0.353 -0.249 28. 0.017 -0.048 0.082 362.
1984 2 -0.183 -0.301 -0.065 29. 0.001 -0.062 0.064 362.
1984 3 -0.116 -0.322 0.090 31. -0.032 -0.107 0.043 362.
1984 4 -0.221 -0.327 -0.115 27. -0.065 -0.134 0.004 359.
1984 5 -0.044 -0.213 0.124 31. -0.085 -0.151 -0.019 359.
1984 6 -0.242 -0.190 -0.293 30. -0.099 -0.153 -0.045 359.
1984 7 -0.274 -0.310 -0.238 31. -0.134 -0.191 -0.076 359.
1984 8 -0.195 -0.182 -0.207 31. -0.158 -0.215 -0.101 359.
1984 9 -0.501 -0.475 -0.526 30. -0.207 -0.258 -0.156 359.
1984 10 -0.200 -0.266 -0.135 31. -0.216 -0.266 -0.166 359.
1984 11 -0.408 -0.580 -0.236 30. -0.248 -0.319 -0.177 359.
1984 12 -0.371 -0.570 -0.171 28. -0.253 -0.339 -0.167 356.
1985 1 -0.133 -0.183 -0.082 31. -0.238 -0.323 -0.153 359.
1985 2 -0.185 -0.107 -0.263 28. -0.239 -0.309 -0.169 359.
1985 3 -0.081 -0.260 0.098 31. -0.236 -0.304 -0.169 359.
1985 4 -0.161 -0.270 -0.053 30. -0.231 -0.299 -0.163 362.
1985 5 -0.210 -0.177 -0.243 31. -0.245 -0.296 -0.195 362.
1985 6 -0.210 -0.320 -0.099 30. -0.243 -0.307 -0.178 362.
1985 7 -0.347 -0.524 -0.170 27. -0.248 -0.323 -0.173 358.
1985 8 -0.172 -0.350 0.006 31. -0.246 -0.337 -0.154 358.
1985 9 -0.170 -0.311 -0.030 27. -0.218 -0.324 -0.113 355.
1985 10 -0.264 -0.282 -0.246 31. -0.224 -0.325 -0.123 355.
1985 11 -0.115 -0.084 -0.146 27. -0.200 -0.285 -0.115 352.
1985 12 -0.117 -0.041 -0.193 31. -0.179 -0.241 -0.118 355.
1986 1 -0.006 0.026 -0.038 31. -0.168 -0.223 -0.114 355.
1986 2 -0.139 -0.288 0.009 28. -0.165 -0.237 -0.092 355.
1986 3 -0.115 -0.130 -0.099 28. -0.168 -0.226 -0.110 352.
1986 4 0.009 -0.049 0.067 30. -0.153 -0.208 -0.099 352.
1986 5 -0.010 -0.076 0.056 31. -0.136 -0.199 -0.073 352.
1986 6 -0.114 -0.094 -0.135 30. -0.128 -0.179 -0.076 352.
1986 7 -0.149 -0.230 -0.068 31. -0.113 -0.158 -0.068 356.
1986 8 -0.183 -0.248 -0.117 31. -0.114 -0.149 -0.079 356.
1986 9 -0.236 -0.320 -0.151 30. -0.120 -0.151 -0.089 359.
1986 10 -0.238 -0.241 -0.235 31. -0.118 -0.148 -0.088 359.
1986 11 -0.078 -0.194 0.038 30. -0.115 -0.156 -0.073 362.
1986 12 -0.105 -0.190 -0.019 31. -0.114 -0.169 -0.058 362.
1987 1 0.176 0.278 0.073 31. -0.098 -0.147 -0.049 362.
1987 2 0.219 0.304 0.135 28. -0.070 -0.102 -0.039 362.
1987 3 -0.050 0.011 -0.112 31. -0.065 -0.090 -0.041 365.
1987 4 0.130 0.064 0.196 30. -0.055 -0.080 -0.030 365.
1987 5 -0.033 -0.104 0.039 31. -0.057 -0.083 -0.031 365.
1987 6 0.156 0.049 0.264 30. -0.035 -0.071 0.001 365.
1987 7 0.129 0.115 0.144 28. -0.012 -0.043 0.018 362.
1987 8 0.043 -0.002 0.087 31. 0.007 -0.022 0.036 362.
1987 9 0.061 0.129 -0.007 30. 0.032 0.015 0.048 362.
1987 10 0.227 0.234 0.220 31. 0.071 0.056 0.087 362.
1987 11 0.125 0.106 0.145 30. 0.088 0.081 0.096 362.
1987 12 0.387 0.558 0.216 31. 0.130 0.145 0.116 362.
1988 1 0.302 0.382 0.222 31. 0.141 0.154 0.129 362.
1988 2 0.051 0.076 0.027 24. 0.129 0.136 0.122 357.
1988 3 0.252 0.226 0.277 31. 0.155 0.155 0.155 357.
1988 4 0.078 -0.024 0.179 30. 0.151 0.149 0.154 357.
1988 5 0.103 0.213 -0.007 31. 0.163 0.176 0.149 357.
1988 6 0.100 0.130 0.070 27. 0.158 0.183 0.134 354.
1988 7 0.202 0.265 0.139 31. 0.164 0.195 0.133 357.
1988 8 0.157 0.298 0.016 31. 0.175 0.221 0.128 357.
1988 9 0.296 0.316 0.275 30. 0.194 0.237 0.151 357.
1988 10 0.142 0.196 0.088 31. 0.187 0.234 0.139 357.
1988 11 -0.043 -0.092 0.005 30. 0.172 0.217 0.128 357.
1988 12 -0.103 -0.103 -0.103 31. 0.129 0.158 0.099 357.
1989 1 -0.297 -0.319 -0.275 31. 0.078 0.099 0.057 357.
1989 2 -0.152 -0.117 -0.187 28. 0.062 0.084 0.041 362.
1989 3 -0.165 -0.058 -0.272 31. 0.026 0.059 -0.006 362.
1989 4 -0.083 0.046 -0.211 30. 0.013 0.065 -0.039 362.
1989 5 -0.199 -0.108 -0.290 31. -0.013 0.038 -0.063 362.
1989 6 -0.196 -0.134 -0.258 30. -0.036 0.017 -0.089 365.
1989 7 -0.075 -0.028 -0.122 31. -0.060 -0.008 -0.111 365.
1989 8 -0.058 -0.046 -0.069 31. -0.078 -0.037 -0.118 365.
1989 9 0.080 0.114 0.047 29. -0.096 -0.055 -0.138 364.
1989 10 0.066 0.069 0.062 31. -0.103 -0.065 -0.140 364.
1989 11 -0.037 -0.155 0.082 30. -0.102 -0.071 -0.134 364.
1989 12 0.091 0.044 0.137 31. -0.086 -0.058 -0.113 364.
1990 1 0.022 -0.011 0.054 31. -0.058 -0.032 -0.085 364.
1990 2 -0.111 -0.004 -0.219 28. -0.055 -0.023 -0.088 364.
1990 3 0.131 0.358 -0.095 31. -0.030 0.012 -0.072 364.
1990 4 0.030 0.091 -0.031 30. -0.021 0.016 -0.058 364.
1990 5 0.115 0.187 0.042 31. 0.006 0.041 -0.029 364.
1990 6 0.106 0.251 -0.039 30. 0.031 0.073 -0.011 364.
1990 7 0.065 0.011 0.118 31. 0.043 0.076 0.009 364.
1990 8 0.026 0.066 -0.015 31. 0.050 0.086 0.014 364.
1990 9 0.012 0.063 -0.039 30. 0.044 0.082 0.007 365.
1990 10 0.147 0.155 0.138 31. 0.051 0.089 0.013 365.
1990 11 0.339 0.324 0.355 30. 0.082 0.129 0.036 365.
1990 12 0.234 0.269 0.198 31. 0.094 0.148 0.041 365.
1991 1 0.150 0.194 0.105 31. 0.105 0.165 0.045 365.
1991 2 0.185 0.220 0.149 28. 0.128 0.182 0.073 365.
1991 3 0.308 0.457 0.159 31. 0.143 0.191 0.095 365.
1991 4 0.149 0.248 0.049 30. 0.153 0.204 0.102 365.
1991 5 0.180 0.340 0.020 29. 0.158 0.216 0.100 363.
1991 6 0.343 0.319 0.367 30. 0.178 0.222 0.134 363.
1991 7 0.206 0.219 0.192 31. 0.190 0.239 0.140 363.
1991 8 0.221 0.225 0.217 31. 0.206 0.253 0.160 363.
1991 9 0.067 0.149 -0.015 30. 0.211 0.260 0.162 363.
1991 10 -0.065 -0.016 -0.115 31. 0.193 0.245 0.140 363.
1991 11 -0.111 -0.011 -0.210 30. 0.156 0.218 0.093 363.
1991 12 -0.136 -0.153 -0.118 31. 0.124 0.182 0.066 363.
1992 1 -0.038 0.001 -0.077 31. 0.108 0.165 0.051 363.
1992 2 -0.144 -0.040 -0.247 29. 0.081 0.143 0.019 363.
1992 3 -0.035 -0.050 -0.019 31. 0.053 0.101 0.005 363.
1992 4 -0.215 -0.311 -0.118 30. 0.023 0.055 -0.008 363.
1992 5 -0.225 -0.444 -0.006 31. -0.011 -0.011 -0.012 365.
1992 6 -0.236 -0.430 -0.042 30. -0.059 -0.072 -0.046 365.
1992 7 -0.372 -0.600 -0.144 31. -0.108 -0.142 -0.075 365.
1992 8 -0.406 -0.483 -0.330 31. -0.160 -0.201 -0.120 365.
1992 9 -0.390 -0.359 -0.420 30. -0.198 -0.243 -0.153 365.
1992 10 -0.167 -0.227 -0.107 31. -0.206 -0.261 -0.151 365.
1992 11 -0.176 -0.134 -0.217 30. -0.212 -0.270 -0.153 365.
1992 12 -0.242 -0.139 -0.345 31. -0.221 -0.270 -0.172 365.
1993 1 -0.255 -0.206 -0.304 31. -0.239 -0.287 -0.190 365.
1993 2 -0.219 -0.110 -0.327 28. -0.245 -0.292 -0.197 365.
1993 3 -0.386 -0.317 -0.455 31. -0.275 -0.315 -0.234 365.
1993 4 -0.274 -0.325 -0.223 30. -0.280 -0.316 -0.243 365.
1993 5 -0.231 -0.206 -0.255 31. -0.280 -0.296 -0.264 365.
1993 6 -0.118 -0.167 -0.070 30. -0.270 -0.274 -0.266 365.
1993 7 -0.098 -0.156 -0.040 31. -0.247 -0.237 -0.258 365.
1993 8 -0.209 -0.254 -0.163 31. -0.230 -0.217 -0.243 365.
1993 9 -0.359 -0.428 -0.291 30. -0.228 -0.223 -0.233 365.
1993 10 -0.116 -0.210 -0.021 31. -0.223 -0.222 -0.225 365.
1993 11 -0.099 -0.177 -0.022 30. -0.217 -0.225 -0.209 365.
1993 12 0.040 0.089 -0.008 31. -0.193 -0.206 -0.181 365.
1994 1 -0.032 0.082 -0.145 31. -0.174 -0.181 -0.167 365.
1994 2 -0.187 -0.147 -0.227 28. -0.172 -0.184 -0.160 365.
1994 3 -0.191 -0.077 -0.306 31. -0.155 -0.164 -0.147 365.
1994 4 -0.133 0.007 -0.273 30. -0.144 -0.136 -0.151 365.
1994 5 -0.134 0.070 -0.338 31. -0.135 -0.113 -0.158 365.
1994 6 -0.024 0.029 -0.077 30. -0.128 -0.097 -0.159 365.
1994 7 -0.036 0.050 -0.122 31. -0.122 -0.079 -0.166 365.
1994 8 -0.096 -0.028 -0.164 31. -0.113 -0.060 -0.166 365.
1994 9 0.011 0.077 -0.055 30. -0.082 -0.019 -0.146 365.
1994 10 -0.163 0.030 -0.356 31. -0.087 0.002 -0.175 365.
1994 11 0.110 0.221 0.000 30. -0.069 0.034 -0.173 365.
1994 12 0.086 0.105 0.067 31. -0.065 0.036 -0.167 365.
1995 1 0.102 0.353 -0.149 31. -0.054 0.059 -0.167 365.
1995 2 0.046 0.289 -0.197 28. -0.036 0.092 -0.165 365.
1995 3 -0.058 -0.008 -0.108 31. -0.025 0.098 -0.148 365.
1995 4 0.193 0.352 0.033 30. 0.002 0.126 -0.123 365.
1995 5 0.045 0.201 -0.111 31. 0.017 0.138 -0.103 365.
1995 6 0.111 0.295 -0.073 30. 0.028 0.159 -0.103 365.
1995 7 0.075 0.116 0.033 31. 0.038 0.165 -0.090 365.
1995 8 0.234 0.324 0.145 31. 0.066 0.195 -0.064 365.
1995 9 0.239 0.318 0.159 30. 0.084 0.215 -0.046 365.
1995 10 0.107 0.092 0.121 31. 0.107 0.220 -0.005 365.
1995 11 0.111 0.334 -0.112 30. 0.107 0.229 -0.015 365.
1995 12 -0.161 -0.330 0.007 31. 0.086 0.193 -0.020 365.
1996 1 -0.155 -0.111 -0.200 31. 0.065 0.153 -0.024 365.
1996 2 -0.005 -0.029 0.020 29. 0.062 0.130 -0.006 365.
1996 3 0.007 -0.059 0.074 31. 0.066 0.124 0.008 365.
1996 4 -0.067 -0.254 0.119 30. 0.045 0.074 0.015 365.
1996 5 -0.133 -0.085 -0.181 31. 0.030 0.050 0.010 365.
1996 6 -0.137 -0.092 -0.182 30. 0.009 0.018 0.001 365.
1996 7 -0.033 -0.016 -0.051 31. 0.000 0.006 -0.007 365.
1996 8 0.069 -0.096 0.234 31. -0.015 -0.029 0.000 365.
1996 9 0.162 0.027 0.298 30. -0.021 -0.053 0.012 365.
1996 10 0.080 0.054 0.107 31. -0.023 -0.056 0.011 365.
1996 11 0.072 0.261 -0.117 30. -0.025 -0.061 0.011 365.
1996 12 -0.034 0.044 -0.112 31. -0.015 -0.031 0.000 365.
1997 1 -0.143 -0.271 -0.016 31. -0.013 -0.042 0.016 365.
1997 2 -0.096 -0.110 -0.082 28. -0.021 -0.050 0.008 365.
1997 3 -0.107 -0.070 -0.144 31. -0.031 -0.051 -0.010 365.
1997 4 -0.222 -0.145 -0.299 30. -0.043 -0.042 -0.045 365.
1997 5 -0.073 -0.053 -0.094 31. -0.038 -0.039 -0.037 365.
1997 6 -0.016 0.048 -0.079 30. -0.028 -0.027 -0.029 365.
1997 7 0.067 0.181 -0.046 31. -0.020 -0.011 -0.028 365.
1997 8 0.062 0.211 -0.087 31. -0.020 0.015 -0.056 365.
1997 9 0.101 0.290 -0.087 30. -0.025 0.037 -0.087 365.
1997 10 0.132 0.179 0.085 31. -0.021 0.048 -0.089 365.
1997 11 0.146 0.051 0.241 30. -0.015 0.030 -0.060 365.
1997 12 0.262 0.180 0.344 31. 0.010 0.042 -0.021 365.
1998 1 0.499 0.484 0.514 31. 0.065 0.106 0.024 365.
1998 2 0.646 0.687 0.605 28. 0.122 0.167 0.077 365.
1998 3 0.448 0.537 0.360 31. 0.169 0.219 0.119 365.
1998 4 0.746 0.997 0.496 30. 0.249 0.313 0.185 365.
1998 5 0.624 0.669 0.578 31. 0.308 0.374 0.242 365.
1998 6 0.551 0.646 0.455 30. 0.354 0.423 0.286 365.
1998 7 0.490 0.681 0.298 31. 0.390 0.466 0.315 365.
1998 8 0.474 0.533 0.416 31. 0.425 0.493 0.358 365.
1998 9 0.428 0.566 0.291 30. 0.452 0.516 0.389 365.
1998 10 0.380 0.500 0.259 31. 0.473 0.543 0.403 365.
1998 11 0.136 0.195 0.077 30. 0.472 0.555 0.390 365.
1998 12 0.241 0.308 0.174 31. 0.471 0.566 0.375 365.
1999 1 0.087 0.232 -0.058 31. 0.436 0.544 0.327 365.
1999 2 0.174 0.308 0.041 28. 0.399 0.515 0.284 365.
1999 3 -0.088 -0.010 -0.166 31. 0.354 0.469 0.239 365.
1999 4 0.001 0.299 -0.296 30. 0.293 0.411 0.174 365.
1999 5 -0.071 0.093 -0.235 31. 0.234 0.362 0.105 365.
1999 6 -0.194 0.063 -0.450 30. 0.172 0.314 0.030 365.
1999 7 -0.073 0.042 -0.188 31. 0.125 0.260 -0.011 365.
1999 8 -0.111 -0.020 -0.201 31. 0.075 0.213 -0.063 365.
1999 9 0.074 0.191 -0.043 30. 0.046 0.182 -0.091 365.
1999 10 0.014 0.014 0.014 31. 0.015 0.141 -0.111 365.
1999 11 -0.036 0.151 -0.222 30. 0.001 0.137 -0.136 365.
1999 12 -0.035 0.159 -0.229 31. -0.023 0.125 -0.170 365.
2000 1 -0.273 -0.197 -0.350 31. -0.053 0.088 -0.195 365.
2000 2 -0.057 0.019 -0.134 29. -0.072 0.066 -0.209 365.
2000 3 -0.048 -0.021 -0.075 31. -0.068 0.065 -0.201 365.
2000 4 0.050 0.226 -0.125 30. -0.063 0.059 -0.186 365.
2000 5 0.023 0.084 -0.039 31. -0.056 0.058 -0.170 365.
2000 6 -0.028 0.019 -0.074 30. -0.042 0.055 -0.138 365.
2000 7 -0.097 -0.010 -0.183 31. -0.044 0.050 -0.139 365.
2000 8 -0.107 0.077 -0.291 31. -0.044 0.058 -0.146 365.
2000 9 0.057 0.156 -0.041 30. -0.045 0.056 -0.146 365.
2000 10 0.029 0.033 0.025 31. -0.044 0.057 -0.146 365.
2000 11 0.031 0.011 0.051 30. -0.038 0.046 -0.122 365.
2000 12 -0.001 0.024 -0.027 31. -0.035 0.034 -0.105 365.
2001 1 0.016 0.068 -0.037 31. -0.011 0.057 -0.079 365.
2001 2 0.098 -0.023 0.219 28. 0.001 0.054 -0.052 365.
2001 3 0.042 0.174 -0.090 31. 0.008 0.070 -0.053 365.
2001 4 0.188 0.235 0.140 30. 0.020 0.071 -0.031 365.
2001 5 0.157 0.325 -0.011 31. 0.031 0.091 -0.029 365.
2001 6 -0.047 0.069 -0.163 30. 0.030 0.096 -0.036 365.
2001 7 0.044 0.178 -0.091 31. 0.041 0.111 -0.029 365.
2001 8 0.252 0.429 0.076 30. 0.072 0.141 0.002 364.
2001 9 0.109 0.200 0.018 30. 0.076 0.144 0.007 364.
2001 10 0.211 0.192 0.231 31. 0.091 0.158 0.025 364.
2001 11 0.211 0.274 0.147 30. 0.106 0.180 0.033 364.
2001 12 0.229 0.223 0.235 31. 0.126 0.196 0.055 364.
2002 1 0.307 0.410 0.205 31. 0.151 0.225 0.076 364.
2002 2 0.279 0.393 0.165 28. 0.164 0.257 0.072 364.
2002 3 0.260 0.366 0.155 31. 0.183 0.274 0.092 364.
2002 4 0.236 0.213 0.259 30. 0.187 0.272 0.102 364.
2002 5 0.261 0.259 0.264 31. 0.196 0.266 0.126 364.
2002 6 0.276 0.319 0.232 30. 0.223 0.287 0.158 364.
2002 7 0.208 0.379 0.038 31. 0.237 0.304 0.169 364.
2002 8 0.170 0.139 0.202 31. 0.230 0.280 0.180 365.
2002 9 0.272 0.265 0.278 30. 0.243 0.285 0.201 365.
2002 10 0.147 -0.056 0.349 31. 0.238 0.264 0.211 365.
2002 11 0.281 0.237 0.325 30. 0.243 0.261 0.226 365.
2002 12 0.193 0.044 0.342 31. 0.240 0.246 0.235 365.
2003 1 0.372 0.473 0.271 31. 0.246 0.251 0.240 365.
2003 2 0.251 0.175 0.326 28. 0.244 0.235 0.253 365.
2003 3 0.101 0.088 0.114 31. 0.230 0.211 0.249 365.
2003 4 0.132 0.251 0.014 30. 0.222 0.214 0.229 365.
2003 5 0.176 0.374 -0.022 31. 0.214 0.224 0.205 365.
2003 6 -0.008 0.182 -0.198 30. 0.191 0.213 0.169 365.
2003 7 0.089 0.158 0.020 31. 0.181 0.194 0.168 365.
2003 8 0.098 0.287 -0.090 31. 0.175 0.206 0.143 365.
2003 9 0.198 0.356 0.040 30. 0.169 0.214 0.123 365.
2003 10 0.314 0.482 0.146 31. 0.183 0.260 0.106 365.
2003 11 0.251 0.320 0.181 30. 0.180 0.266 0.094 365.
2003 12 0.413 0.495 0.332 31. 0.199 0.305 0.094 365.
2004 1 0.282 0.239 0.325 31. 0.191 0.285 0.098 365.
2004 2 0.287 0.506 0.068 29. 0.195 0.312 0.078 365.
2004 3 0.328 0.492 0.164 31. 0.214 0.346 0.083 365.
2004 4 0.124 0.132 0.116 30. 0.214 0.335 0.092 365.
2004 5 0.000 0.152 -0.151 31. 0.198 0.316 0.081 365.
2004 6 -0.021 -0.037 -0.006 30. 0.198 0.299 0.097 365.
2004 7 -0.213 -0.139 -0.286 31. 0.172 0.273 0.070 365.
2004 8 -0.073 0.083 -0.228 31. 0.157 0.256 0.058 365.
2004 9 0.120 0.193 0.048 30. 0.150 0.242 0.059 365.
2004 10 0.239 0.246 0.232 31. 0.144 0.222 0.066 365.
2004 11 0.151 0.292 0.010 30. 0.136 0.220 0.051 365.

DECADAL TREND= 0.078 0.147 0.010

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, like most things, it's a question of measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

M uses the term 'degree'. So both of you are in more agreement on matters than you realize. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks for the book recomendation, it does look interesting.

Merry Christmas.

-Zeno

[John Feeney]

Ray,

It seems you’ve tried to dismiss the Science article wacki provided. But despite containing some good general points, I don’t think your arguments really apply to it. First, of its author you said:

[ QUOTE ]
She is not directly associated with meteorology or climate research.


[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed out that such direct association was unnecessary for her simply to count up the percentage of articles, out of 928, which endorsed or disagreed with the consensus position.

Now you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Surveys of journal articles are more like journalism than science, and the biases of the authors are a real problem here.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be true as a general statement, I don’t think it does much damage to the findings of the article in question. While the author’s division of articles into categories (explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.) may have been partially subjective (It’s unfortunate she did not provide detail on how she operationalized the categories. I suppose that’s allowed by Science in an “essay.”), her results are so extreme that it would be amazing if any bias on her part had enabled her to reach the wrong conclusion.

For the sake of discussion assume, for instance, that by applying a bias (perhaps subtly and unconsciously) she was able to keep 30 articles out of the “rejection of the consensus position” category. So instead of being able to say that zero out of 928 articles fell in that category, she might have to say that about 3% of the articles disagreed with the consensus. This would not really affect her argument that there is a strong scientific consensus on global warming. Only if she had committed a blatant fraud, systematically applying bias to keep a great many articles out of the “rejection” category would her bias be responsible for having generated the wrong conclusion. And I see no reason to suspect that.

One might also think that if she were consciously applying a bias, but didn’t want it to be obvious, she would at least let a tiny number of articles go into the “rejection” category, just so nothing would look odd. Yet she did not put a single article there. Perhaps it was because there really were none that belonged there.

On a slightly different tack, you say:

[ QUOTE ]
climate science is very complex and highly contaminated by politics.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’m no expert on it, but I’m not sure that’s true. There is a lot of pseudo-science out there (e.g., www.globalwarming.org (http://www.globalwarming.org)) funded by industry, but I haven’t seen evidence that the legitimate science is “highly contaminated by politics.” What interest would most academic scientists have in supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change? Is there some economic motivation? How likely, really, is such a scientist, to jeopardize his credibility and career by injecting bias in his work, fudging data, etc? Not that it never happens, but how likely is it that the consensus shown by most of the major scientific organizations to have published statements on global warming (NAS, AAAS...) is some sort of conspiratorial application of bias? I may be wrong. That’s why I’m asking. But as far as I can see the only clear bias is in the corporate funded publications aimed at “dispelling the myth of global warming.”

Lastly, if you don’t mind my asking, what is your background, Ray? You seem to have some knowledge of the field, yet your eagerness to dismiss the consensus position makes me wonder where you’re coming from in this.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
The John cole's and John Feeney's of the world will still cry foul and object. Right guy's - or am I wrong in this assumation?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really don’t know, Zeno. I haven’t been much in touch with nuclear power since we kicked its ass in the early ‘80s or so. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif It’s certainly possible that it could turn out to be the lesser of two evils (or goods, depending, as you know better than anyone, on how look at it). Waste disposal used to be one of the big issues. Have they come up with any better solutions in recent years? Are current designs much less vulnerable to Chernobyl style disasters?

I don’t know that much about the other alternatives being proposed. It would certainly depend on how the nuclear option would stack up against them.

BTW, I spent a couple of years at ASU too. From the sound of it I may be your elder by more than I had guessed. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Waste disposal used to be one of the big issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem solved 100%.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/nnuke26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/26/ixhome.html

"The Daily Telegraph is reporting that Amec, the company that cleaned up Ground Zero, have developed a new process for storing nuclear waste that lasts two hundred thousand years - far longer than any radioactivity will last. The process works by mixing eighty percent soil with twenty percent waste and then heating the mixture to three thousand degrees centigrade. When the mixture cools it forms into a glass harder than concrete. While this is not the first waste process of this type it is the first to be cost effective and produces a glass much harder than previous methods. "

[ QUOTE ]
Are current designs much less vulnerable to Chernobyl style disasters?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's very safe if done properly. We have a very limited supply of fuel though. Fission is not an answer, Fusion maybe, but not fission.

[Zeno]

I had to needle you guys, sorry. You took it well; I suspected you would. I went to school later on in life so we are probably closer in age than you guess. I'm the same age as Andy Fox and John Cole. Though of course, I'm both more handsome and light-years smarter than they are. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

The Chernobyl disaster was in an old-style graphite reactor that is not even used in the U.S. Designs have improved from the 1970's and 80's and the risks and environmental harm from Nuclear Power have been much reduced, though in my opinion it was always overblown in the publics mind, as just the mention of radioactivity will cause many people to scream bloody murder.

Coal-fired generating plants release a large amount of radioactivity into the air, from uranium and thorium that are found naturally in coal. In fact, coal-fired plants are, I think, allowed to release more radioactivity into the air under current regulations than Nuclear Power Plants. I am not positive on this but I do know that coal-fired plants release a certain amount of radioactive particles. A plant in Ohio that I was working near used to interfere with some of our sensitive radiation detection instruments when the wind was blowing in the right direction.

I could do a search on this etc but others may know more about it and can chime in.

Obviously difficult choices have to be made. And I suspect that they will not be easy ones to make and the lesser of supposed 'evils' may be the way to go.

-Zeno

[Felix_Nietsche]

My point is not whether global warming is occuring or not. More point there is **No** proof whether the actions of **MAN** are contributing to global warming. Since the ice age ended, there has been "global warming". And once again there were no cars or factories in the ice age to cause "global warming".

There are many many factors that could contribute to global warming. The problem is designing a experiment that can isolate the variables to determine the cause(s) of global warming. These "scientists" have failed to design **ONE** experiment which could give evidence that man is causing global warming rather than **NATURAL** factors (eg the energy out put from the sun. volcano output, wator vapor levels, etc...)

It gross arrogance to ASSUME that our actions could cause world climate changes without proof..... They can measure soil tempertures and contents all they want but without a properly designed experiment, they are just wasting money and spreading misinformation....

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is not whether global warming is occuring or not. More point there is **No** proof whether the actions of **MAN** are contributing to global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you are way off base. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. They can easily prove the exact wavelengths of light that are trapped by carbon dioxide. Also, they can easily tell what percentage of carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuel by testing for C14. Google it. So far your posts really haven't been worthy of much attention.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"They can easily prove the exact wavelengths of light that are trapped by carbon dioxide. Also, they can easily tell what percentage of carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuel by testing for C14."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So what.......they can measure the number of hairs on a monkey's @ss as far as I'm concerned. It does not change the fact that they **STILL** can't prove what causes the so called "global warming" nor whether the actions of man has even a SLIGHT IMPACT on climate changes.

And no matter how many times you use google, you can't spin this fact away......

[theBruiser500]

"The burden of proof is on "scientists who claim man's activities are causing climate changes". "

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but this is so stupid, you are really stupid felixmoron. If scientists think there is any chance that what we're doing is causing global warming than we need to stop doing it. If we ruin the planet now we ruin it for everyone and we won't be able to fix it easily or at all.

[RayGarlington]

[ QUOTE ]
On a slightly different tack, you say:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

climate science is very complex and highly contaminated by politics.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I’m no expert on it, but I’m not sure that’s true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. A couple of examples that might get you going...

1. The IPCC is a government body established to reach a concensus position concerning the issue of human-induced climate change. It is composed of representatives from member countries of either the UN or WMO. Membership is voluntary. These representatives participate in sub-committees, which evaluate relevant papers. Committees operate in the normal way with a chair and rules of order, etc. As you can see, you have a natural bias in the structure of this organization. (self-selected individuals meeting to ascertain the extent of "human-induced climate change".)

Clearly, this is not the way science is performed, nor is it the way to determine the truth of any matter. Science is difficult enough without committees.

2. Unfortunately, I will stoop to finger one of the founding "scientists" of the global warming movement. Here is a quote from the guy:

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective, and being honest."

This guy, who is now preaching global meltdown, was once (up to about 1978) warning the world of an impending global cooling which would lead to the next Ice Age. Did he see the light, or merely move to stay in the spotlight?

Well, if you look, you will find lots of things that are odd about global warming. Just don't put too much faith in the reports of the IPCC. They are TRYING TO PROVE THIER POINT, not determine the truth of the matter.

As for who I am, it doesn't matter. Some guy on the internet who likes truth and hates politics.

[John Feeney]

Okay, you're a smidgen older than I. Now I don't have to restructure my world view. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I may heve been off base a little in referring to nuclear power as an "evil." I just mean that it's not as trouble free or worry free as some of the alternatives. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know better than I, most of those alternatives are not well enough developed to compete with nuclear as a semi-replacement for oil etc.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
most of those alternatives are not well enough developed to compete with nuclear as a semi-replacement for oil etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Replace "most" with "all" and you are correct /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Problem being that nuclear doesn't seem to be the solution either, not nuclear fission at least. Not enough fuel, the EREOI (energy return on energy input) not as high as people would like to belive (somewhere in the order of 10, compared to oil that used to be an order of magnitude higher). Wacki thinks highly of that new storage trick, I think he might be right, I havn't found any info on how energy intensive the method is, it sure sounds like it would use some energy.

[John Feeney]

Yeah, that'll get me going... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Man, Ray, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m leaning more toward just doubting your objectivity in this and your understanding of the subject. In your first post, you offered up some authoritative sounding assertions and some intriguing looking figures. Wacki, who knows a lot more about it than I questioned those figures. Okay, I figured, I’ll let them hash that out if they want to, but Ray seems to be going way too far in so easily dismissing the Science article wacki posted.

So over two posts I pointed out how your assertions were either wrong or inapplicable:

1. First you said the author was in the History department at UCSD. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed it was an innocent omission to leave out that she’s actually in the Department of History and Science Studies Program (my emphasis), a fact which slightly weakened your next objection. I still assume you didn’t make that omission intentionally, but I’m beginning to be a little less confident in that assumption.

2. You next complained that she was not directly involved in meteorology or climate research. I pointed out that this was irrelevant to her ability just to count up how many studies, out of 928, agreed with or rejected the consensus opinion that the human contribution to global warming is real and significant.

3. Next you complained that the article was more a survey of other articles, more like journalism than science ( I think it was more a simple observational study.) and that “the biases of the authors are a real problem here.” I showed that given her extreme results, even the removal of a hypothetical injection of bias, short of consistent outright fraud, would be unable to change her conclusion.

These three points are all pretty simple. So I have wondered why you made each of those three objections to begin with. You seem too smart not to have realized yourself that each was either incorrect or irrelevant. I hope you weren’t just tossing them out in the hope that no one would question their validity, in an effort to get others to dismiss the article. I do hope you are as interested in the truth as you say you are. But, Ray, you have not responded to a single one of these points.

(Let me clarify that I’m not saying it is an absolute fact that your objections are invalid. To me, they appear to be. But I could be missing something. You are of course free to clarify or offer any counterpoints. You might just change my mind on the matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Moving on...

[ QUOTE ]
1. The IPCC is a government body established to reach a concensus position concerning the issue of human-induced climate change. It is composed of representatives from member countries... These representatives participate in sub-committees (self-selected individuals meeting to ascertain the extent of "human-induced climate change".)

Clearly, this is not the way science is performed...


[/ QUOTE ]

But Ray, the IPCC is not “the science” which you say is so contaminated with politics. The science is the researcher in the lab at the university or in the field, the resulting journal articles in reputable, peer reviewed journals, and peripherally such things as the professional meetings of those researchers where ideas are exchanged and plans made for collaboration.

Of course when the IPCC publishes a statement aimed at the general public we have to consider how they might have arrived at it and to what extent, if any, it may have involved politics, or less sinisterly an attempt to simplify for a general readership. But we can compare what they say to what other major scientific bodies say. We can also look at individual articles, literature reviews and so on. But without making a part time job of it, those of us not working in the field have to look for ways of getting past the level of micro-details and on to the gist, if there is one. Comparing what the major scientific organizations are saying seems a reasonable way at least to get an idea of the consensus. They pretty much all seem to be agreeing these days.

[ QUOTE ]
one of the founding "scientists" of the global warming movement. Here is a quote from the guy:

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective, and being honest."


[/ QUOTE ]

Booo, booo Ray! Now you’re really forcing me to doubt your intentions. First, why do you offer up quotes, statistics and such without providing sources? You see, I’ve learned to be skeptical of posters who do that because on this forum some political extremists make bold assertions without mentioning that they’re parroting something they heard from Rush Limbaugh. Or they’ll link to a superficially looking mainstream article without mentioning that it’s from a paper owned by the Unification Church or a site owned by corporate interests committed to spreading the notion that climate change is purely a “myth.” Stuff like that.

And now you’ve posted a misquote(!), out of context, which a bit of research reveals is a favorite of those trying to dismiss climate change.

First, let’s compare your “quote” with what Stephen Schneider really said in a Discover magazine interview in 1989. Here’s the real quote (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Stephen%20Schneider):

[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little different, eh? While they may still be vulnerable to criticism, his real comments were far less disturbing than the “quote” you provided. I suspect that in the context of the interview they were even less so.

I’m not accusing you of intentionally misquoting him. The same misquote is found on many websites trying to dismiss global warming. Undoubtedly you just plucked it from one of them. But if you’re really interested in the truth, Ray, then when you see a provocative comment you might want to search out what someone really said and what they really meant.

Schneider, a MacArthur “Genius Award” recipient, has provided a more detailed response to the vested interests (http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html#quote ) who typically misquote him out of context. Among other things, he says:

[ QUOTE ]
What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings... I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of Science.

[/ QUOTE ]


You say:
[ QUOTE ]
This guy, who is now preaching global meltdown, was once (up to about 1978) warning the world of an impending global cooling which would lead to the next Ice Age. Did he see the light, or merely move to stay in the spotlight?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it was the far less conspiratorial explanation provided on the first site above:

In his earlier model (~1971), “CO2 was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was incorrect by a factor of about 3 - a fact soon recognised.”

Moreover, it appears he was beginning to talk more about warming as early as 1976.

Ray, in your earlier posts you sounded like you might know much more than the average layperson about climate change issues. It does still appear that you’ve looked into it to some degree. I asked about your background but you declined to let us know anything about you. I asked because if you had said, for instance, that you work for Exxon, or that you were a researcher in a field related to climate change, or that you were just an interested layperson, or whatever, it would speed up assessing your comments as you’ve sometimes failed to provide sources and have made some strong assertions which may or may not be valid.

Also, rather than posters making authoritative sounding assertions without informing readers of where their supposed knowledge comes from, I prefer it when they're up front from the start on their qualificastions or the research they've done. Call it a pet peeve. At this point I’d have to guess you’re motivated for some reason to discount the importance of the global warming/climate change issue more than to clarify what is really known about it. I’m not sure. I could be wrong. Hope I am.

[Felix_Nietsche]

If you have taken a freshman science class and paid attention, you would know this.

Sorry Bruiser, but you are evidence that our public school system is failing to educate our students.

[RayGarlington]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I’d have to guess you’re motivated for some reason to discount the importance of the global warming/climate change issue more than to clarify what is really known about it. I’m not sure. I could be wrong. Hope I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

John,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I hope you will continue to apply your cautious, skeptical approach in all your endeavors. The truth is out there and with any luck, we will all find it.

I don't have a dog in the global warming fight, and am just an interested spectator who have worked closely with scientists for over 20 years, providing computer support (lab data collection, database, and analysis). I only commented on this thread because Wacki has a little too much faith in science and the process by which it is conducted including peer review. When scientists tilt and go into politics, it really frosts me.

[RayGarlington]

And one more thing about your question here:

[ QUOTE ]
Next you complained that the article was more a survey of other articles, more like journalism than science ( I think it was more a simple observational study.) and that “the biases of the authors are a real problem here.” I showed that given her extreme results, even the removal of a hypothetical injection of bias, short of consistent outright fraud, would be unable to change her conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't mean to ignore people's inquiries, but more or less swept things under the carpet with the "we can't hope to solve the global warming debate..." comment. Anyhow, concerning this particular paper. I just did a current contents search and there are 2728 recent papers on climate. How did she choose the 928 papers? How did she have time to read all of these? Think about it: 928 technical papers. How likely was she to have understood the points and implications of the data presented? Maybe if she was more closely associated with the field of study I could buy it. As you have pointed out yourself, even a MacArthur “Genius Award” recipient, can get it wrong.

sorry for the sarcasm.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I only commented on this thread because Wacki has a little too much faith in science and the process by which it is conducted including peer review. When scientists tilt and go into politics, it really frosts me.

[/ QUOTE ]

1993-2003 and not one paper denies that Humans are causing global warming. Their methodology is rock solid. If I am having too much faith in believing them.... /images/graemlins/mad.gif I'm sorry I just don't have the words to give a thorough response. Mybe you should pick up a copy of science and see how thorough their process is.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How did she choose the 928 papers?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"

[ QUOTE ]
How did she have time to read all of these

[/ QUOTE ]

She didn't. She read the abstracts.

[Zeno]

I don't really like 'getting in the middle' but I feel the need to comment.

Peer review is not perfect - nothing that humans do is. There are a few flaws and some justifiable criticism, but overall, it is an excellent way to publish research. It takes an average of two years (or used to for most publications) to get something published in a peer-review journal. It is a difficult process to go through.

The other thing to mention is that most scientists will tend to take a 'conservative approach' in statements and in using data. For example, in the model study I worked on with others, we always used 'high' or 'biased high data' and parameters when there was any doubt or questions about the data, or which input parameters to use for the model etc. This compounds all the way through the model and thus the numbers become more 'conservative' (biased high in other words). This is common practice, especially when dealing with sensitive or public related matters that have a potential to stir controversy. Thus, the output may ‘naturally’ be biased in the conservative or high direction. There is nothing wrong with this at all, as long as it is stated up front and qualified in the report or article etc (which is why I mentioned ‘error bars’ in a previous post)

And the acquisition of data is always a sticky subject. What are the accuracy (repeatability) and the precision of the numbers, how do you best interpret what the numbers mean etc?

But despite all the above, with the preponderance of evidence, and the majority consensus among scientist, would lead, I think, any rational person to believe that humans are influencing the climate on this planet. The degree of influence is still an unknown. It could be significant or relatively minor. Either way, the stakes are so large that some form of action would be prudent. What those actions should be is a subject of endless debate – depending on your worldview and political outlook.

-Zeno

[John Feeney]

As far as I'm concerned, Zeno's post puts a good cap on the whole thread.

Now, could I possibly be turning into a nuclear power advocate?? Hmmm... /images/graemlins/blush.gif