Anyone wanna debate Global Warming?

[Annie]

Just something I came across this morning:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

A cold spell soon to replace global warming
13:54 | 03/ 01/ 2008

Print version

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming. ....

 

[Foxfyre]

Just something I came across this morning:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

This was linked on the Drudge Report the other day and I too found it interesting. It touches on something for which I have no scientific basis but, operating strictly on common sense, if CO2 traps some heat that warms the Earth and does not allow it to dissipate, wouldn't the converse also be true? CO2 would also block some of the heat arriving from the sun? Just looking at it from the common sense angle, it would then seem that any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could be a wash so far as causing any substantive effect on the mean temperatures of the Earth.

 

[Steerpike]

No Foxfyre - CO2 does not trap solar radiation from the sun. Once the radiation hits the earth and the earth warms up, the CO2 does, however, trap thermal radiation. You're dealing with two different things depending on whether you're talking about solar radiation or heat emitted from the earth, and CO2 blocks one and not the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

That isn't what I said. I said the arguments have already been supported and substantiated by other sources we have posted on the thread (as well as elsewhere.) Perhaps you could show, with some substantiation, something that was 'crap' that was presented as explanation for the answers they supplied?

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!

I didn't say that either. I did say, by implication, that most of the pro-AGW scientists are not climatologists or climate experts in any sense, nor did they do any fact checking of the results of the 'evidence' presented to them. All they did was sign on on the study as appearing to be credible. As many have discovered that much of the data has been proved to be flawed, many are now backing off their personal 'consensus' in support of the AGW data.

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.

And, if those publishing the journals are committed to a particular point of view, they too often select 'peers' to do the reviewing that are sympathetic to that point of view. This is why an open mind and willingness to look at ALL the studies and data out there is critical if we want to be as accurate as possible in our conclusions rather than just buying into the stuff we're being fed.

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.

Oil is being created by the Earth all the time so, in that sense, it is unlimited. The Earth may or may not be creating it as fast as it is being used, but with new and better technologies to harvest it, there is certainly as much oil available now as what has already been used. We could cover all available vacant land left with solar panels and wind farms and still produce only a fraction of the energy available through use of crude oil, natural gas, and coal. Before those supplies run out, we will be many generations down the road and will certainly have devised currently unconceived of energy sources that will provide whatever energy we need.

And to repeat, given the evidence presented by the pro-AGW group and the skeptics, 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. And we should not be making international policy based on bad science.

 

[Foxfyre]

No Foxfyre - CO2 does not trap solar radiation from the sun. Once the radiation hits the earth and the earth warms up, the CO2 does, however, trap thermal radiation. You're dealing with two different things depending on whether you're talking about solar radiation or heat emitted from the earth, and CO2 blocks one and not the other.

You may be right. If I ever studied that in science class, I have long forgotten it. How much thermal radiation does the Earth produce? How cold would it be without warming from the sun?

 

[Bern80]

Man I wish some of you were around when my buddy was here. I usually get left all alone with him.

 

[CharlestonChad]

That isn't what I said. I said the arguments have already been supported and substantiated by other sources we have posted on the thread (as well as elsewhere.) Perhaps you could show, with some substantiation, something that was 'crap' that was presented as explanation for the answers they supplied?

I asked you to check out some of the "sources". Please do so and you will know exactly why I said what I did.



I didn't say that either. I did say, by implication, that most of the pro-AGW scientists are not climatologists or climate experts in any sense, nor did they do any fact checking of the results of the 'evidence' presented to them. All they did was sign on on the study as appearing to be credible. As many have discovered that much of the data has been proved to be flawed, many are now backing off their personal 'consensus' in support of the AGW data.


Data on both sides of the debate have been proven to be flawed. It's part of science. I just called out that fact that you said that they aren't justified to support AGW in the first place, but you then noted how they have now withdrawn support. If they aren't justified to have an opinion for AGW, then they aren't valid in having one against AGW.

And, if those publishing the journals are committed to a particular point of view, they too often select 'peers' to do the reviewing that are sympathetic to that point of view. This is why an open mind and willingness to look at ALL the studies and data out there is critical if we want to be as accurate as possible in our conclusions rather than just buying into the stuff we're being fed.

I choose to believe that Nature and Science and other premier research publications are unbiased. If you choose to believe there is a conspiracy or bias, then that's fine too. All I know about the process is what I've been told from a few of the people who are the 'peers' in their fields.


Oil is being created by the Earth all the time so, in that sense, it is unlimited. The Earth may or may not be creating it as fast as it is being used, but with new and better technologies to harvest it, there is certainly as much oil available now as what has already been used. We could cover all available vacant land left with solar panels and wind farms and still produce only a fraction of the energy available through use of crude oil, natural gas, and coal. Before those supplies run out, we will be many generations down the road and will certainly have devised currently unconceived of energy sources that will provide whatever energy we need.

I never said that oil production has stopped. But in the geological timescale, humans are using it up and it is not unlimited. Humans are burning fossil fuels at a rate that's almost unmeasurable compared to the rate of production of the fuels. Coal was made over extremely long periods of time, but we're using it up in a short period of time.


And to repeat, given the evidence presented by the pro-AGW group and the skeptics, 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. And we should not be making international policy based on bad science.

That's because the majority of scientists in the field are publishing research that supports AGW, so naturally more is going to be disproven.

1

 

[Bern80]

That's because the majority of scientists in the field are publishing research that supports AGW, so naturally more is going to be disproven.

This is patently false. The one thing my arch rival and I did agree on was this number. That is less than half of the scientific community (roughly 42&#37 endorse the idea that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend. Depending on what info you look at the number range from as low as 32% endorseing AGW to 75% endorseing AGW. Do yourself a favor and do a quick search on global warming consensus.

Here is just one sample I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

 

[Bern80]

This is just an opinion piece but, i thought was a rather objective look at what we know and don't know.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

 

[Foxfyre]

This is patently false. The one thing my arch rival and I did agree on was this number. That is less than half of the scientific community (roughly 42&#37 endorse the idea that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend. Depending on what info you look at the number range from as low as 32% endorseing AGW to 75% endorseing AGW. Do yourself a favor and do a quick search on global warming consensus.

Here is just one sample I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

I'm guessing less than 10% of bonafide climate scientists and climate experts are currently on board with the AGW theory. At least trying to find more than two or three is like hunting for hen's teeth.

AGW, however, seems to have become this great ultra-liberal religion with strict doctrine and specified catechisms. Any scientist who doesn't recite the creed is branded with a scarlett letter and consigned to hell.

Any questioning of the dogma are dismissed as unreliable sources, while all the adherents are exalted as unbiased and unquestionable.

I suppose many of the most fanatical AGW proponents are mostly the same people who consider born-again Christians to be the most dangerous people on Earth.

 

[ReillyT]

This is patently false. The one thing my arch rival and I did agree on was this number. That is less than half of the scientific community (roughly 42%) endorse the idea that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend. Depending on what info you look at the number range from as low as 32% endorseing AGW to 75% endorseing AGW. Do yourself a favor and do a quick search on global warming consensus.

Here is just one sample I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Without getting into the specifics of the global warming debate, which I have already done in the past and found unsatisfying, are you sure that you want to quote this wikipedia article?

This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific technical criteria that do not necessarily reflect a broader skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.[1] The consensus position of the climate science community was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[2]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. [3]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming. [4]

 

[ReillyT]

I'm guessing less than 10% of bonafide climate scientists and climate experts are currently on board with the AGW theory. At least trying to find more than two or three is like hunting for hen's teeth.

AGW, however, seems to have become this great ultra-liberal religion with strict doctrine and specified catechisms. Any scientist who doesn't recite the creed is branded with a scarlett letter and consigned to hell.

Any questioning of the dogma are dismissed as unreliable sources, while all the adherents are exalted as unbiased and unquestionable.

I suppose many of the most fanatical AGW proponents are mostly the same people who consider born-again Christians to be the most dangerous people on Earth.

To be fair, you do have a very restrictive definition of "bonafide climate scientist."

 

[Bern80]

Without getting into the specifics of the global warming debate, which I have already done in the past and found unsatisfying, are you sure that you want to quote this wikipedia article?

Yes. I cited it as an example. The items you bolded have been commented on at length. Try the last few pages of this thread. Are you sure you want to put so much faith in the IPCC report?

 

[ReillyT]

Yes. I cited it as an example. The items you bolded have been commented on at length. Try the last few pages of this thread. Are you sure you want to put so much faith in the IPCC report?

Having no scientific basis to judge the issue myself, and absent any other knowledge or moral belief that would tend to make me think otherwise, I go with the majority opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Having no scientific basis to judge the issue myself, and absent any other knowledge or moral belief that would tend to make me think otherwise, I go with the majority opinion.

It is NOT the majority. That is a lie.

 

[ReillyT]

It is NOT the majority. That is a lie.

I guess we will agree to disagree, although if you judge the relevant pool as those scientists that study global warming, and you judge the totality of their opinions by the conclusions of the academic and scientific panels, organizations and academies of which they are members, I think I have the stronger case. But, as I said, we can always agree to disagree.

 

[Steerpike]

I guess we will agree to disagree, although if you judge the relevant pool as those scientists that study global warming, and you judge the totality of their opinions by the conclusions of the academic and scientific panels, organizations and academies of which they are members, I think I have the stronger case. But, as I said, we can always agree to disagree.

That's not necessarily true, Reilly. At least not if you dig into the primary scientific literature yourself. You're relying on second-hand representations of the scientists that study the situation think, and those aren't always accurate.

 

[ReillyT]

That's not necessarily true, Reilly. At least not if you dig into the primary scientific literature yourself. You're relying on second-hand representations of the scientists that study the situation think, and those aren't always accurate.

True enough. I acknowledge that I have neither the scientific capability or the inclination to review the primary scientific literature. However, in a world with limited time, we must decide on what bases to form our opinions and in which areas we have the interest to conduct independent study. I grant you that forming my opinion on the basis of the statements of the IPCC, Joint Science Academy, American Meteorological Society, etc. is at best, the second-best means to form an educated opinion - but that is all that I have the time and training to do.

 

[Steerpike]

True enough. I acknowledge that I have neither the scientific capability or the inclination to review the primary scientific literature. However, in a world with limited time, we must decide on what bases to form our opinions and in which areas we have the interest to conduct independent study. I grant you that forming my opinion on the basis of the statements of the IPCC, Joint Science Academy, American Meteorological Society, etc. is at best, the second-best means to form an educated opinion - but that is all that I have the time and training to do.

That's true of most people. Nothing to be done about it; it's just a fact. The media drops the ball. You don't hear much about the scientists who do not support the anthropogenic theory, or about the letter many of them signed and sent to the UN. Or about the fact that scientists listed in the IPCC report actually had to threaten the UN with a lawsuit because they didn't agree with the anthropogenic theory and yet the IPCC included them in the report anyway, as among the scientists who support the theory. You also don't hear much about the fact that many of the experts listed in places like the IPCC aren't really climate experts at all.

It's unfortunate when science becomes a political football.

 

[ReillyT]

That's true of most people. Nothing to be done about it; it's just a fact. The media drops the ball. You don't hear much about the scientists who do not support the anthropogenic theory, or about the letter many of them signed and sent to the UN. Or about the fact that scientists listed in the IPCC report actually had to threaten the UN with a lawsuit because they didn't agree with the anthropogenic theory and yet the IPCC included them in the report anyway, as among the scientists who support the theory. You also don't hear much about the fact that many of the experts listed in places like the IPCC aren't really climate experts at all.

It's unfortunate when science becomes a political football.

I guess it comes down to whether you trust the sources.

Well, like it or not, the global warming issue may be decided partly on science, but it will definitely be decided with politics, whichever way it goes. C'est la vie. We do the best we can.