Global Warming is a legit threat

#26
#26
iceman9 said:
TT, that is the nature of us all, you have to find that needle in the haystack, but I think you understand that as long as politics and billions of dollars are involved, their will be, and "should be", some skepticism in play to keep everything above board. I absolutely know that this country, or this world would not be better off without scientist. Onward young man, and remember skeptics like me are a good thing, we're going to get under your skin sometimes, but that will keep striving to prove us wrong, and their is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
OMG, smoke another bowl, geeez!
 
#29
#29
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Click to expand...

As an engineer who is re-learning how to be a scientist, I thought I might try to comment on this directly a bit....

I think that the desire to claim a consensus is brought about when science is consumed by non-scientists, who are not accustomed to the inherent lack of consensus and agreement on a piece of science. Science is made better through discourse, through the lack of consensus...no doubt about it. However, there can be no consensus in science? Really? How many people out there reject Newton's Laws of Motion for large-body systems? So..it is wrong to reject the notion of scientific consensus altogether.

However, Crichton's point is valid: scientists hate consensus, in general. I swear, two scientists could argue for hours over whether the color of a wall is English Blue or Royal Blue. You are trained to point out every flaw you can find, to attack what someone is saying constantly. And...this certainly happens in the global climate change community...there are tons of aspect where the scientists cannot agree....there are different models to describe the earth's climate dynamics - and each model's authors will vigorously defend their approach while others will point out weaknesses. This is how you get good science.

So, then, is there any consensus and why would we care? I think that the bottom line is that non-scientists see this squabbling and arguing over fine points, and can easily get the impression that they must both be wrong..and have no idea what they are talking about. The problem is that to me or you, that wall is blue...who cares. We can easily see it's blue, but the scientists may argue for three days over the shade. I think that is the case in a lot of ways in the climate change community (not among all, of course, Richard Lindzen would say that wall is red, for example).

I think that when science meets policy, there is an effort to get scientists to agree to a consensus view so that these arguments do not creep into the general public where they would not be understood and truly aren't all that relevant to the overall conclusions. It isn't just climate change...I would imagine it is almost all scientific issues that have a policy impact.

I think that the notion of consensus should be taken for what it is. It doesn't really mean that everyone accepts it (though it likely should to be a true consensus)..it means that within reason, a large majority accept the scientific point. Within the scientific community, nobody cares about where the consensus is...if you accept something then you don't study it...if you don't, then you study it. It works pretty well that way. But, when policy decisions are going to be made on the basis of the science...the larger scientific community has come to realize that there is utility in forming a "consensus" view to pass on to the policy makers. You can't pass on every piece of data, every detailed aspect of the climate models, every view on positive and negative feedbacks....if you did that, you would paralyze the decision makers.
 
#30
#30
Anyone remember the Kyoto Protocol? It was plan signed by a lot of the world's nation's (not the US) that was supposed to reduce the effects of global warming. The Kyoto Protocol is expected (if every nation in the world accepts it) to reduce temperatures by .04 degrees Celsius after 100 years.
 
#31
#31
If I'm gonna continue to read this thread I'm gonna need ya to pass that :censored: around... :naughty:
 
#32
#32
My take: Cities are experiencing localized warming. That's pretty much been proven. That can be explained by the large increase in population and structures. The world as a whole, however, is not. At least, not warming at a rate that is unnatural.

Lots of areas have actually been cooling if you look at the oldest data available for those areas. Unfortunately, certain global warming pushers select a start date that will show a warming trend to present day. If you look at West Point, NY from 1826 - 2000, you get a slight decrease in temperature. However, if this data were presented at an Al Gore presentation, you'd get the data showing 1900-2000, which shows a slight warming trend.
 
#33
#33
kptvol said:
I don't believe that is even close to the truth.
Click to expand...

With the information I have, I think that it is very close to the truth. The climatology community may disagree internally about how certain aspects are modeled or addressed - but that basic notion of greenhouse gas-induced warming is widely accepted among them. Richard Lindzen is one of the very few dynamic climatologists I can name who disagrees with his colleagues. I think that Richard has big issues with the aspect of forecasting complex (chaotic), many-variable systems 100 years into the future...and he has some legitimate arguments there. However, he truly is in a small minority.

What you do have is a larger community of geologists, ecologists, biologists, marine scientists, etc. who have issues with the conclusions of the IPCC and portions of the scientific community. When predicting the effects of warming on the ecosystem, there is a lot of disagreement and dissension....and some argue that the IPCC did not do a good job of reasonably addressing these viewpoints in its series of assessment reports (like the 4th assessment report that was released this year). These points are very important because they in many ways reflect what the impact of human-induced warming will be on our lives....and that will drive what policy decisions we make...so we have more work to do here, no doubt. You have some meteorologists that argue against climate change as well....and I think that most of these guys/gals are motivated by the old adage, "you can't predict weather further into the future than 10 days." But, climate isn't weather....and you likely can forecast global average temperatures years into the future. The problem is that all politics are local, if you will, and global average temperatures aren't very helpful for driving local policy decisions.

However, as for the warming theory....you won't find that many climatologists at all who can scientifically argue against attribution of warming to GHG emissions.
 
#34
#34
Which is why global warming can be dismissed. B/c there was fluctuation and temperature before 1900.
 
#35
#35
kptvol said:
Anyone remember the Kyoto Protocol? It was plan signed by a lot of the world's nation's (not the US) that was supposed to reduce the effects of global warming. The Kyoto Protocol is expected (if every nation in the world accepts it) to reduce temperatures by .04 degrees Celsius after 100 years.
Click to expand...

Wow...big surprise that a pact that doesn't have any of the world's future biggest emitters (the US, China, and India) in it would have little impact on climate.
 
#36
#36
Volnissniss said:
Which is why global warming can be dismissed. B/c there was fluctuation and temperature before 1900.
Click to expand...

Did people die of lung cancer before there were cigarettes? Does that mean that it is unreasonable to assert that smoking cigarettes can cause you to get lung cancer and die?
 
#37
#37
TennTradition said:
Wow...big surprise that a pact that doesn't have any of the world's future biggest emitters (the US, China, and India) in it would have little impact on climate.
Click to expand...

Notice I said if every nation in the world accepted it.
 
#38
#38
Volnissniss said:
Which is why global warming can be dismissed. B/c there was fluctuation and temperature before 1900.
Click to expand...

I think that a better argument would be that temperatures today are cooler than they were before the Industrial Revolution.
 
#39
#39
kptvol said:
My take: Cities are experiencing localized warming. That's pretty much been proven. That can be explained by the large increase in population and structures. The world as a whole, however, is not. At least, not warming at a rate that is unnatural.

Lots of areas have actually been cooling if you look at the oldest data available for those areas. Unfortunately, certain global warming pushers select a start date that will show a warming trend to present day. If you look at West Point, NY from 1826 - 2000, you get a slight decrease in temperature. However, if this data were presented at an Al Gore presentation, you'd get the data showing 1900-2000, which shows a slight warming trend.
Click to expand...

You're right...data can be played with...and you can pick all kinds of locations to show cooling...or warming..whatever you want. I have personally witnessed both sides of this debate do that.

As to your points about urban heat islands (the cities experiencing localized warming)...this is a very important issue. However, scientists have made a concerted effort to subtract out these effects from urban data, or simply avoid using urban data when possible. The IPCC assessment reports actually dedicate some space to discussing this issue and what affect it was quantified to have on the historic temperature record. In other words, there has been an effort to consider the impact of the warming induced locally by cities with asphalt, concrete, etc.
 
#40
#40
kptvol said:
Notice I said if every nation in the world accepted it.
Click to expand...

Sorry...missed that. Is the Kyoto really that weak? Hmm.....that seems a bit weird. 100 year temperature increases are projected to be somewhere around 3 degrees C or so if no emission reduction strategies are employed....so I'm surprised that Kyoto calls for so little emissions cuts. Is that a piece of data you saw somewhere? Because...it could be that if everyone accepts Kyoto...China and India would still have no emissions constraints because of how Kyoto was structured...(although I'm surprised the US doesn't account for a bigger chuck of that 3 degrees...actually, I'm pretty sure we do...) There are currently talks going on for Phase II of Kyoto...which would allow for negotiations to make China and India have constraints...though that is tenuous at best.
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
Sorry...missed that. Is the Kyoto really that weak? Hmm.....that seems a bit weird. 100 year temperature increases are projected to be somewhere around 3 degrees C or so if no emission reduction strategies are employed....so I'm surprised that Kyoto calls for so little emissions cuts. Is that a piece of data you saw somewhere? Because...it could be that if everyone accepts Kyoto...China and India would still have no emissions constraints because of how Kyoto was structured...(although I'm surprised the US doesn't account for a bigger chuck of that 3 degrees...actually, I'm pretty sure we do...) There are currently talks going on for Phase II of Kyoto...which would allow for negotiations to make China and India have constraints...though that is tenuous at best.
Click to expand...

I read it in Nature. It actually gives a range of temperature decrease from 0.2 - 0.15, but lists 0.4 as a best estimate.
 
#42
#42
kptvol said:
I read it in Nature. It actually gives a range of temperature decrease from 0.2 - 0.15, but lists 0.4 as a best estimate.
Click to expand...

You said .04 earlier, did you mean 0.4? Also is it weird that the best estimate isn't inside the range of expected values?

Are these numbers actual expected temperature decreases, or decreases from reference (reference being if no one reduces emissions and other nations grow in emissions as expected)?
 
#43
#43
TennTradition said:
You said .04 earlier, did you mean 0.4? Also is it weird that the best estimate isn't inside the range of expected values?

Are these numbers actual expected temperature decreases, or decreases from reference (reference being if no one reduces emissions and other nations grow in emissions as expected)?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just tired and got a little mixed up. Range: 0.02 - 0.15. Most likely: 0.04. That study was done in 2003. However, an earlier study (1998) suggested a range of .08-.28
 
#46
#46
kptvol said:
I could find out. It may take me awhile.
Click to expand...

I would like to take a look at it if you find the time...I'm trying to find it right now, but I can't. I'm searching 2003 Nature for keywords like "climate change" and "Kyoto" as well as "Kyoto" and "100 years" or "Kyoto" and " 0.04", but I haven't come across this yet.
 
#47
#47
TennTradition said:
I would like to take a look at it if you find the time...I'm trying to find it right now, but I can't. I'm searching 2003 Nature for keywords like "climate change" and "Kyoto" as well as "Kyoto" and "100 years" or "Kyoto" and " 0.04", but I haven't come across this yet.
Click to expand...

Well Nature is a scientific journal. I imagine you'd need a subscription to read it.
 
#48
#48
kptvol said:
Well Nature is a scientific journal. I imagine you'd need a subscription to read it.
Click to expand...

I can read it...if I can find it... I have access to most on-line journals, including Nature (through school/work). I tried googling it, but all I can find are references to Crichton's p. 496 (or so) where he says it...or where other people repeat it. I assume Crichton got it from somewhere....perhaps this Nature article...State of Fear was written in 2004.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top