Anyone wanna debate Global Warming?

Not all climatologists have degrees titled climatology, and not all paleoclimatologists have degrees titled paleoclimatology. In many cases they have degrees in related fields. The expertize of a researcher and their field of work is more determined by the research they publish than the name of the degree they took. For example William Ruddiman is a well known paleoclimatologist, but his Ph.D. was in Marine Geology.

Both Hartman and Brooks are climatologists, with Brooks also being a paleoclimatologist by the nature of his published research in ice cores and distant climate changes. Hartman teaches Climatology, has written a textbook on climatology and has also published many on it.

That is what Hartman has done.
Some titles of published research:
The General Circulation of the Atmosphere and its Variability
Radiative and Convective Driving of Tropical High Clouds
Influence of doubled CO2 on ozone via changes in the Brewer-Dobson Circulation
Changes in the strength of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation in a simple AGCM
The life cycle of the Northern Hemisphere sudden stratospheric warmings
Cloud-radiative forcing and climate: Insights from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment.

I don't dispute that he has done a lot and knows a lot. He does not, however, have the credentials indicating any particular expertise in the field. Geophysical fluid dynamics and mechanical engineering are not majors in which people focus much on the climate. I am not attempting to discredit him as having sufficient expertise to contribute to the debate. I do question whether he can be considered a true expert in paleoclimatology. In my lifetime I have signed onto several papers and projects for which I had expertise to contribute to a portion of it, but could not claim to be an expert on the subjects overall.[/QUOTE]

(Re people Foxfyre considers to be experts on climatology/paleoclimatory) Can you give five examples of such people? I don't honestly know what kind of people you are thinking of.

Somewhere I have a list of people I have read over the years, but for the life of me I can't find it now. Several of the people on that list are on the following Wikipedia list, however. While I don't use Wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything, it is useful in providing names, places, keywords, etc. that are useful in further research. Most of the names listed here are among those I respect in having expertise in certain fields useful in the global warming debate, but I would not consider them to be climatologists. There are probably at least five, however, that I consider to be bonafide climatologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
Just going with the style of the speech. Here are some links documenting the errors.

no ice age theory in the 70s: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

This was interesting when you consider the implication. or actually not implied but stated that press, TV are not reliable sources of scientific info. The implication being that despite it appearing in headlines, there was no scientific prediction of an oncomeing ice age, cooling, etc. (according to the write).

So why are we not looking at the headlines of today as containing the same level of unreliability that the author here claims? What the MSM has put forth has been predominantly pro AGW. Why are we to assume the headlines of today are anymore reliable than the headlines of the 70's?

Hansen hadn't started writing climate models in the Early 70s:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf

That isn't exactley what that says. It says he wrote his first paper then (accorcing to him). Not whether he had developed models prior to that.



0.05% increase in TSI is not enough to explain the warming observed on Earth in the past 3 decades:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/VariableSun/variable4.html

Umm that's not what that article says either. The following is particularily interesting given the source

A half of a percent change in solar output could raise temperatures, eventually, about three-quarters of a degree Celsius, which, coincidentally, roughly equals the observed warming in the past century,” says Hansen. The apparent coincidence is no smoking gun, however. Because of their great heat storage capacity, the Earth’s oceans would buffer any increase in the Sun’s output for a long time. “Nevertheless, the potential is there for the Sun to be a significant player in the climate game, at least over the long term,” says Hansen, “which is why we need to keep studying the issue.”

There is no commentary about the effect of TSI over the last decade. What you did was extrapolate out what you think those observations means as they would pertain to the last three decades.

Co2 is a cause of warming and warming is a cause of co2 rise, both are true:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

That also doesn't say that. It says they don't know. Good website though.


Natural processes absorb more co2 than they emit. Human activity does not:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

If true, then the question would be is the human activity the predominant reason we are seeing the warming we are seeing?
 
For any interested parties. there will be a program on the National Geographic channel tonight 11/1 @ 10 pm EST about the effects sun has on Earth's climate.
 
This was sent to me in my e-mail today and thought some of you might enjoy taking this 10-question quiz on global warming:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Neat. I especially like how it explains why each answer is correct or incorrect depending on your choice.

Where, oh where is my good buddy? Seems he went on another hiatus. Though I'm sure we would be provided some excuse as to why little or no merit can be placed to your link.
 
Neat. I especially like how it explains why each answer is correct or incorrect depending on your choice.

Where, oh where is my good buddy? Seems he went on another hiatus. Though I'm sure we would be provided some excuse as to why little or no merit can be placed to your link.

Well he would just claim oil companies paid for that quiz.
 
I'd say the two sides are pretty much polarized on this issue, and further debate without supporting evidence is just so much hot air, no pun intended.:lol:

Not really. As far as mans impact, the most one could legitimately say based on the evidence is that man's impact on climate is inconclusive.

And yet we have Al Gore telling us there is a state of emergency based on his junk science.
 
This was sent to me in my e-mail today and thought some of you might enjoy taking this 10-question quiz on global warming:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Foxfyre, that quiz is pretty much trash. Try checking out their "sources" and I think you'll know exactly what I mean. Any real scientific source of information doesn't have to open up with "this is good science because we say it is". All scientists know that you write a paper and let the readers/editors decide if your testing and evaluation of data are correct.
 
Foxfyre, that quiz is pretty much trash. Try checking out their "sources" and I think you'll know exactly what I mean. Any real scientific source of information doesn't have to open up with "this is good science because we say it is". All scientists know that you write a paper and let the readers/editors decide if your testing and evaluation of data are correct.

Unless it is global warming caused by man then if you support the theory you get to refuse to provide data and methodolgy until forced to months or even years after the "peer" reviewed article is posted.
 
Can you please use grammar to at least make that post understandable?

Mr Intelligensia has no idea what I have said?

It is simple , if you support man made global warming, you get a pass. You get "peer" reviewed journals to post your "facts" with OUT providing data or methodology. Then those that know your paper is crap spend months or years forcing you to finally disclose the crap you claim was proof.

Hockey stick graph ring a bell? The fact that the upper atmosphere is NOT doing what it would need to do to justify the CO2 claims ring a bell?

Is that better for poor charlie whom can't read?
 
Foxfyre, that quiz is pretty much trash. Try checking out their "sources" and I think you'll know exactly what I mean. Any real scientific source of information doesn't have to open up with "this is good science because we say it is". All scientists know that you write a paper and let the readers/editors decide if your testing and evaluation of data are correct.


I didn't need to 'check the sources' because the sources, whatever they are, are collaborated and supported by bonafide climatologists and earth scientists that we have been using as sources throughout this thread. Most of those pro-AGW scientists, however, have mostly no credentials to evaluate the science presented to support AGW, but have 'signed off' on the IPCC stuff or whatever as the models used looked 'credible'. Many jumped ship afterward when it became obvious how much of the 'science' and models used were flawed; and more are abandoning ship every day.

The problem with peer review is that if you only use peers who agree with you to review the paper, the science that started out as junk science will not be exposed or corrected, nor will we get any contradictory analysis that will create a more balanced view. Consider these two 'exposes' on peer review:

http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The problem is compounded when there is intense effort on the part of the AGW proponents and their media accomplices to discredit anybody who questions or disagrees with the AGW doctrine.

My position for some time has been to keep an open mind on this subject and to encourage our elected leaders with responsibility for policy to also keep an open mind before we start joining in on ill conceived or even harmful international agreements. We shouldn't mess with a perfectly good economy doing something that causes more problems than it solves. We shouldn't give up personal freedoms and drastically alter our lifestyles for something that may be absolutely useless in the grand scheme of things. And most importantly, we should not use junk science to doom countless millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are prohibited from using their natural resources to lift themselves out of poverty as we all did.

Right now I believe the skeptics have the edge on the credibility meter. Far more 'science' put out there by the AGW crowd has been proved to be bogus than have any arguments the skeptics are making.
 
I'm curious as to if any of you guys/girls are non-believes that the Earths climate is changing. I'm just a marinebiology student, but I've done a lot of research on this and am a firm believer that the Earth is warming and that humans are having an impact.

Let the good times roll.

Living proof our collegate educators are a bunch of kooks...

Dont be so gullible...

Al Gore created Global warming right after he created the internet stupid!
 
Mr Intelligensia has no idea what I have said?

It is simple , if you support man made global warming, you get a pass. You get "peer" reviewed journals to post your "facts" with OUT providing data or methodology. Then those that know your paper is crap spend months or years forcing you to finally disclose the crap you claim was proof.

Hockey stick graph ring a bell? The fact that the upper atmosphere is NOT doing what it would need to do to justify the CO2 claims ring a bell?

Is that better for poor charlie whom can't read?

Thanks RGS, for explaining that god awful sentence. Good thing you don't have a real job because I doubt you could get away with such poor writing skills in the workplace.

Now as for your post, please educate yourself on the peer review process. If you tell someone in person your thoughts you just told this messageboard, you will get laughed at.

Hockeystick graph: Link?

Upper Atmo: Link?
 
I didn't need to 'check the sources' because the sources, whatever they are, are collaborated and supported by bonafide climatologists and earth scientists that we have been using as sources throughout this thread.

Don't be a fool with the classic argument "I don't need to prove anything cause I know it's right".


Most of those pro-AGW scientists, however, have mostly no credentials to evaluate the science presented to support AGW, but have 'signed off' on the IPCC stuff or whatever as the models used looked 'credible'. Many jumped ship afterward when it became obvious how much of the 'science' and models used were flawed; and more are abandoning ship every day.

So you're saying many of the pro-AGW scientists aren't qualified to examine AGW research, but now they ARE qualified enough to stop believing in AGW. Brilliant!

The problem with peer review is that if you only use peers who agree with you to review the paper, the science that started out as junk science will not be exposed or corrected, nor will we get any contradictory analysis that will create a more balanced view. Consider these two 'exposes' on peer review:

http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Of course peer review isn't perfect. "Peer" implies that humans do the reviewing. Until we come up with a better way, peer review is the most proven way to judging the quality of papers that will and won't get published.


My position for some time has been to keep an open mind on this subject and to encourage our elected leaders with responsibility for policy to also keep an open mind before we start joining in on ill conceived or even harmful international agreements. We shouldn't mess with a perfectly good economy doing something that causes more problems than it solves. We shouldn't give up personal freedoms and drastically alter our lifestyles for something that may be absolutely useless in the grand scheme of things. And most importantly, we should not use junk science to doom countless millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are prohibited from using their natural resources to lift themselves out of poverty as we all did.

Fact is, Oil isn't unlimited. Sunlight, water, and wind are all unlimited (as far as humans existance in a geological timescale). Either America is the first to get off it and we regain the stand out world power status that we once were, or we submit to being stubborn and watch China, Japan, or India develop the technology.
Right now I believe the skeptics have the edge on the credibility meter. Far more 'science' put out there by the AGW crowd has been proved to be bogus than have any arguments the skeptics are making.
 
Charleston:

There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles in support of natural causes for global warming. I once posted something like 30 links from Geophysics Research Letters, Nature, and others (on another politics forum) and not surprisingly not a single person advocating the anthropogenic theory even bothered looking at the articles.

That said, there are also a lot of articles offering evidence for the anthropogenic effect. I don't think the issue is susceptible to proof either way. I also don't think we can do much if anything about it. I think some resources should be put toward dealing with the results of global warming rather than spending so much effort pretending we can stop it.

Also, since you said "oil is limited" I'll note in my other post that I linked an article from one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals (PNAS) on the abiotic theory of oil production, which teaches that it isn't limited.

I still think we should get off oil, but I find the abiotic theory interesting if nothing else.
 
Thanks RGS, for explaining that god awful sentence. Good thing you don't have a real job because I doubt you could get away with such poor writing skills in the workplace.

Now as for your post, please educate yourself on the peer review process. If you tell someone in person your thoughts you just told this messageboard, you will get laughed at.

Hockeystick graph: Link?

Upper Atmo: Link?

I posted a couple of links that are pretty good in educating folks on the peer review process. You so far seem to have skimmed over or ignored them.

And here is a very good source through which you can educate yourself on the problems with the hockey stick theory:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-07-14/stick.htm

As for graphs and charts, of course those pushing any particular point of view can make a graph or chart reflecting whatever they are pushing. Here's a site showing a lot of really great charts and graphs pushed by the large number of scientists, specialists, and professionals who have signed off on the Petition Project and these charts and graphs look nothing like those used by the IPCC and others who are strong advocates for AGW.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

The link to the Petition Project reflects a peer reviewed position paper by the way.

There is always room for an open mind and refusal to be dogmatic on any scientific issue, but at this time I think the skeptics still have a significant and growing edge on credibility.
 
I'm familiar with the peer review process. I've done it. It's pretty good, though it isn't infallible and politics does come into play.
 
I'm familiar with the peer review process. I've done it. It's pretty good, though it isn't infallible and politics does come into play.

Yup. And I imagine you've seen the phenomena of selecting 'peers' for review that are expected to be sympathetic to the content of the paper.
 

Forum List

Back
Top