Climate Science

[Bern80]

laffs...

got anyone more credible? maybe a scientist or a climatologist instead of just another political hack?

I really truly love that you and ReillyT did what you did because it makes you look juvenile and silly. Either that or you just don't read very well. I have one really simple question: Did Mark Moreno conduct the study?

 

[TheStripey1]

The problem with it now is, theres so much money in global warming in order to get funding a scientist would find it favourable to study global warming or include global warming in their own projects. computer models can be manipulated by altering a variable here and there, and to talk against the view of environmentalist, is as bad as denying the holcasut or evolution, and probably damages careers. so its in the interest of the scientist to lean in one dirrection, so who do you belive.

my eyes... even though I am naught but an amateur, our climate around here is changing... it's drier than usual, hotter too...

and I also trust the eyes of the trained observers that have been photographing what is happening across our planet... you have seen the pictures of the receding glaciers, haven't you?

 

[TheStripey1]

I really truly love that you and ReillyT did what you did because it makes you look juvenile and silly. Either that or you just don't read very well. I have one really simple question: Did Mark Moreno conduct the study?

why? because we googled the author? I always google those I don't recognize... do you always accept everything at face value?

wanna buy a nice bridge?

 

[Bern80]

my eyes... even though I am naught but an amateur, our climate around here is changing... it's drier than usual, hotter too...

and I also trust the eyes of the trained observers that have been photographing what is happening across our planet... you have seen the pictures of the receding glaciers, haven't you?

No one is debating whether it's getting warmer. It is. We're debateing why and whether it will pose a problem.

 

[Bern80]

why? because we googled the author?

Wow, tougher question than I thought. I'll just point it out for you, how's that? MARK MORENO ISN'T THE AUTHOR OF THE STUDY. Read the second line down of the article he posted. MARK MORENO posted excerpts of study. Studies aren't posted in peer reviewed journals that are baseless and written by 'hacks'.

 

[MysticPhD]

My restriction against posting links is responsible for the misinterpretation of my post. It is reporting excerpts of interpretations of peer-reviewed studies. Some of the main and most recent studies were also cited eventually. Marc was just posting them. Most of them are in Senator Inhofe's minority report in the Senate evironment committee. My point is NOT that there is no global warming . . . of course there is and has been for some time (since the last ice age). Most of the scientists involved in these recent studies are advocates of global warming! How could they not be . . . it is happening. They also advocate that we should be preparing for the changes that will be wrought . . . because there isn't a thing we can do to stop it! BUT . . . the central point of the most recent studies that is glossed over or hidden by those of a certain persuasion is that HUMANS are NOT the main or even a major source of it!

 

[ReillyT]

Wow, tougher question than I thought. I'll just point it out for you, how's that? MARK MORENO ISN'T THE AUTHOR OF THE STUDY. Read the second line down of the article he posted. MARK MORENO posted excerpts of study. Studies aren't posted in peer reviewed journals that are baseless and written by 'hacks'.

My restriction against posting links is responsible for the misinterpretation of my post. It is reporting excerpts of interpretations of peer-reviewed studies. Some of the main and most recent studies were also cited eventually. Marc was just posting them. Most of them are in Senator Inhofe's minority report in the Senate evironment committee. My point is NOT that there is no global warming . . . of course there is and has been for some time (since the last ice age). Most of the scientists involved in these recent studies are advocates of global warming! How could they not be . . . it is happening. They also advocate that we should be preparing for the changes that will be wrought . . . because there isn't a thing we can do to stop it! BUT . . . the central point of the most recent studies that is glossed over or hidden by those of a certain persuasion is that HUMANS are NOT the main or even a major source of it!

There was no misinterpretation of the post. I never stated that Morano conducted the study. However, he is the author of the piece that described the study and its significance, and as author, he chose studies x,y, and z to discuss, but not others. Therefore, it was important to know the source of the secondary material providing me information about the primary materials.

Surely, if I were to describe to you a study about the physiological effects of tobacco, you might be interested to know whether I work for Phillip Morris, or perhaps, just don't know anything about science.

Bern, it is amusing that you (in effect) chided me for not reading closely enough merely because you didn't read closely enough. Please read more carefully. Thanks.

 

[ReillyT]

My restriction against posting links is responsible for the misinterpretation of my post. It is reporting excerpts of interpretations of peer-reviewed studies. Some of the main and most recent studies were also cited eventually. Marc was just posting them. Most of them are in Senator Inhofe's minority report in the Senate evironment committee. My point is NOT that there is no global warming . . . of course there is and has been for some time (since the last ice age). Most of the scientists involved in these recent studies are advocates of global warming! How could they not be . . . it is happening. They also advocate that we should be preparing for the changes that will be wrought . . . because there isn't a thing we can do to stop it! BUT . . . the central point of the most recent studies that is glossed over or hidden by those of a certain persuasion is that HUMANS are NOT the main or even a major source of it!

Hi Mystic, welcome to the Board.

Since my questions about the objectivity of Morano didn't seem to get anywhere, I though I would delve deeper. I googled Stephen Swartz.

First, his name pulls up a lot of articles debunking man-made climate change. If you look closely, you will find that nearly all of the articles are written or posted by Marc Morano. This is a hint of what is to come.

Second, I looked up Stephen Schwartz at Brookhaven himself. He seems like a cool guy. Here is a picture of him.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

Here also is a little introductory link on his page to global warming.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/warming.pdf

Notice how it says in the Brookhaven materials linked to his page - "Are we 'forcing' the climate to change? Probably, but how much?"

Alas, the introductory materials don't answer the question.

Next, I actually brought up the Schwartz study.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Okay, actually, I could barely understand a fucking word of it. However, to the notion that he is definitively stating anything, be mindful of this quote.

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models…. Ultimately of course the climate models are essential to provide much more refined projections of climate change than would be available from the global mean quantities that result from an analysis of the present sort.

Hmmm... sounds like the respected scientist is wisely unwilling to make claims for which their is insufficient research. Listening, Mr. Morano?

Okay, at this point I delve from what I know into stuff I have no idea about - the actual science. Apparently, Schwartz is a good scientist. He is quite a researcher on the subject of aerosols. Unfortunately, this paper wasn't about aerosols.

From what I gather through the following sites, Schwartz's main mistake in his research (which, by the way, never makes the claims that Morano attributes to it) is that it rests on the assumption that the "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (EQS) is far less than most scientists believe it to be. This skewed the results of his research. Schwartz, for the purpose of his modeling, assumed the "EQS" to be 1.1 ± 0.5 degrees Kelvin", while noting that "IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report concluded it was '2 to 4.5 K with a best estimate of about 3 K and … very unlikely to be less than 1.5.'" Apparently, IPCC's estimate is the same as pretty much everyone else. There is whole list of organizations and studies in the sites below establishing this.

From the posts below, you can see that other scientists disagree with the central assumptions behind Schwart's paper, and also attribute to him some bad math.

Why is this important? Beats the hell out of me. I don't even understand what the EQS is.

What is important?

1. Schwartz never made the claims that Morano kindly undertakes on his behalf. Schwart's research is more limited.
2. Other scientists (who knows how many) disagree strongly with Schwartz's basic assumptions, methodology, and hence, the result.

Does this mean that Schwartz is wrong? No. It doesn't. But, if I may take a quote from one of my two sources below.

To cut to the chase, it is not possible for one study to overturn the consensus.

Here are the sites I was using.

http://www.desmogblog.com/schwartz-study-leaves-james-inhofe-utterly-breathless

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/21/are-scientists-overestimating-or-underestimating-climate-change-part-i/

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html

 

[ReillyT]

I read very closely. I said exacltey what Mystic did. I said the study was not conducted by Moreno, only that he had posted excerpts of other studies.

Good. If you read closely, then surely you acknowledge that I never stated Morano authored the study (as you have previously suggested). In fact, I pointed out in my prior post that the article that Morano wrote focused a lot on one study. See. Reading is fun!

You took the usual left wing route, where instead of actually refuting any of the peer reviewed studies you attacked the credibility of the person that posted the studies.

Not exactly. No cite to the study itself was posted, and as it turns out, I can't make heads or tales of the study itself, as I am not a scientist. However, to the extent that the article described the study, I thought it relevant to figure who exactly was doing the interpretation and describing. Good idea as it turns out, because Morano made claims that Schwartz himself never made. Please see my subsequent post for elucidation.

Where the credibility of the person providing information about the study is in question, what is wrong with pointing that out?

EDIT: Hey, you pulled your post as I was responding to it.

 

[Bern80]

Good. If you read closely, then surely you acknowledge that I never stated Morano authored the study (as you have previously suggested). In fact, I pointed out in my prior post that the article that Morano wrote focused a lot on one study. See. Reading is fun!

I acknowledge that you never stated he authored it. However I also never suggested that you said he authored it. The point I was makeing is that basically you were 'shooting the messenger', as the saying goes. If we want to determine the truth I don't see the purpose in condemning the person who provided the evidence rather than examining the validity of the evidence itself.

I believe in few conspiracies. I do beleive that which ever side of an agenda is most powerful will try to suppress the views of the other side. I believe the MSM are accomplices in that.

Not exactly. No cite to the study itself was posted, and as it turns out, I can't make heads or tales of the study itself, as I am not a scientist. However, to the extent that the article described the study, I thought it relevant to figure who exactly was doing the interpretation and describing. Good idea as it turns out, because Morano made claims that Schwartz himself never made. Please see my subsequent post for elucidation.

There is a bit of nuance here that needs to be clarified here. Morano can make all the claims he wants. He is allowed to opine and interpret the study anyway he likes. What would be wrong is if he attributed claims to Schwartz that he never made.

Where the credibility of the person providing information about the study is in question, what is wrong with pointing that out?

Again I don't see what it accomplishes in terms of getting to the truth. It's just not the way I think. If I were presented with this article and I wanted to find whether it was valid or not, the first thing I would do would be to ask Schwartz about it. Not ask Morano about Schwartz. Think about it, if you want to buy something and you want to know whether it's a good product, are you gonna take the word of the salesman?

EDIT: Hey, you pulled your post as I was responding to it.

Yeah i had to conetemplate your last post a bit.

 

[ReillyT]

I acknowledge that you never stated he authored it. However I also never suggested that you said he authored it. The point I was makeing is that basically you were 'shooting the messenger', as the saying goes.

Fair enough. If I misinterpreted your post. I apologize.

There is a bit of nuance here that needs to be clarified here. Morano can make all the claims he wants. He is allowed to opine and interpret the study anyway he likes. What would be wrong is if he attributed claims to Schwartz that he never made.

Of course Morano can interpret the study anyway he likes. However, Mystic posted Morano's article to support the notions about Schwarz's study. Calling into question Morano's claims about the study, or Morano's reliability himself seems like fair game to me.

Again I don't see what it accomplishes in terms of getting to the truth. It's just not the way I think. If I were presented with this article and I wanted to find whether it was valid or not, the first thing I would do would be to ask Schwartz about it. Not ask Morano about Schwartz. Think about it, if you want to buy something and you want to know whether it's a good product, are you gonna take the word of the salesman?

Probably I wouldn't take the word of the salesman, especially until I found out more information about the salesman I was dealing with. However, when dealing with scientific literature, one pretty much always must rely on secondary articles. Modern science is just too complex for the layman.

It is true I never considered asking Schwartz himself. I just assumed he wouldn't be especially interested in dealing with my personal interest, and I would have felt like an ass asking him about it. I did try to read his study, but it only took me about two sentences before I realized that I was never going to have the slightest clue what he was talking about. It truly was Greek to me. Literally, it was fully of greek notations.

Anyway, sorry if I misinterpreted your prior post.

 

[Bern80]

Probably I wouldn't take the word of the salesman, especially until I found out more information about the salesman I was dealing with. However, when dealing with scientific literature, one pretty much always must rely on secondary articles. Modern science is just too complex for the layman.

I'm trying to make an anology as to why I just don't see the purpose in delineating Morano's credentials (or lack of). And I still think you're kinda of missing it. You understand that Morano is the 'salesman'. Keeping that in mind with the actual subject.....

If you're dealing with a salesman you most likely are wanting to buy something, a car for example. Yet above the first thing you state is that you want to find out more about the salesman? I just don't get that. You're buying a car, not a salesman. He is basically irrelevant. What does figuring out if you want that particualr BMW have to do with the salesman? The salesman could be Mother Theresa or the devil incarnate. Whichever he is, it has nothing to do with whether a BMW (or scientific study) is a good car (study) or not. The salesman(Morano) is irrelevant because there's nothing about the car(study) that he can tell you that you can't most likely find out on your own. that's why I think condemning the messenger or even finding out about him is irrelevant. Morano isn't needed in any way shape or form to determine whether that study is accurate or not.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm trying to make an anology as to why I just don't see the purpose in delineating Morano's credentials (or lack of). And I still think you're kinda of missing it. You understand that Morano is the 'salesman'. Keeping that in mind with the actual subject.....

If you're dealing with a salesman you most likely are wanting to buy something, a car for example. Yet above the first thing you state is that you want to find out more about the salesman? I just don't get that. You're buying a car, not a salesman. He is basically irrelevant. What does figuring out if you want that particualr BMW have to do with the salesman? The salesman could be Mother Theresa or the devil incarnate. Whichever he is, it has nothing to do with whether a BMW (or scientific study) is a good car (study) or not. The salesman(Morano) is irrelevant because there's nothing about the car(study) that he can tell you that you can't most likely find out on your own. that's why I think condemning the messenger or even finding out about him is irrelevant. Morano isn't needed in any way shape or form to determine whether that study is accurate or not.

No, I am not missing it. Your point is not so subtle or complex. I just think that deciphering scientific literature is a bit different than deciding whether I really like leather interior. Have you tried to read the study in question? If you do, I am reasonably sure that you will find it indecipherable. In this respect, it is like most scientific studies. As a result, one is generally forced to rely on descriptions in secondary materials (like Mystic quite reasonably did). Sometimes, if you are lucky, the descriptions themselves are written by qualified scientists willing to break down complex topics into easier concepts graspable by the layman. Unfortunately, sometimes the only secondary materials you find are descriptions of studies by random journalists, only some of whom know what they are talking about. That is why it can be relavant to check on the identities of those doing the reporting.

Secondary materials (salesmen) are how we find out just about everything we know about scientific research. Why? Because determining whether "equilibrium climate sensitivity" is more appropriately 1.1 ± 0.5 degrees Kelvin or 3.5 Kelvin is much more difficult than determing what the mgp is on a 2006 Toyota Camry.

 

[MysticPhD]

ReillyT . . . Thanks for the clear explanation of your views on the matter. I completely understand your concerns and reservations. I have a doctorate in social psychology and I read extensively in the science journals because my math, research and statistical prowess enables me to follow their protocols fairly well. Their jargon frequently requires deeper study to get to the essence of what is being reported, however. So I am sympathetic to your faith in the scientific approach to this issue and to your prudence in wanting to be sure we have all the facts. It is justified . . . but there simply aren't sufficiently robust and rigorous climate models (or even knowledge about the interplay of all the relevant variables) to be making the kinds of proclamations that the global warming alarmists are making about the HUMAN contributions (absent a political agenda).

To summarize what I have been able to glean from the extant studies: Are we contributing . . . absolutely, it is inescapable. Are we exascerbating the normal cyclical effects . . . absolutely. Are our contributions or effects statistically significant . . . certainly. BUT . . . are they practically significant . . . i.e. would the complete removal of our effects have any appreciable impact on the warming trend and its ultimate effects . . . probably not. So what is the likelihood that any conceivably feasible reductions in our effects would?

IOW, the scientists DO agree we are contributing to and exascerbating the effects . . . but none of them realistically think we can stop it or its ultimate effects. So why the hype and hysteria? We should be planning for living with those ultimate effects rather than disrupting our current activities in an essentailly futile effort to prevent the inevitable, IMO.

 

[ReillyT]

ReillyT . . . Thanks for the clear explanation of your views on the matter. I completely understand your concerns and reservations. I have a doctorate in social psychology and I read extensively in the science journals because my math, research and statistical prowess enables me to follow their protocols fairly well. Their jargon frequently requires deeper study to get to the essence of what is being reported, however. So I am sympathetic to your faith in the scientific approach to this issue and to your prudence in wanting to be sure we have all the facts. It is justified . . . but there simply aren't sufficiently robust and rigorous climate models (or even knowledge about the interplay of all the relevant variables) to be making the kinds of proclamations that the global warming alarmists are making about the HUMAN contributions (absent a political agenda).

To summarize what I have been able to glean from the extant studies: Are we contributing . . . absolutely, it is inescapable. Are we exascerbating the normal cyclical effects . . . absolutely. Are our contributions or effects statistically significant . . . certainly. BUT . . . are they practically significant . . . i.e. would the complete removal of our effects have any appreciable impact on the warming trend and its ultimate effects . . . probably not. So what is the likelihood that any conceivably feasible reductions in our effects would?

IOW, the scientists DO agree we are contributing to and exascerbating the effects . . . but none of them realistically think we can stop it or its ultimate effects. So why the hype and hysteria? We should be planning for living with those ultimate effects rather than disrupting our current activities in an essentailly futile effort to prevent the inevitable, IMO.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps that even if it is occurring, and we are a partial cause, there is little that can be done to prevent it. I really have no idea, but without any scientific background, I admit that this sounds like a likely hypothesis.

However, as there is so much we don't know about climate and climate change, and the ramifications in human lives has the potential to be so great, doesn't it behoove us to continue studying and to reduce our emissions where we can if there is even a possibility it might make a difference.

That said, what you say about planning for living with the ultimate effects sounds very prudent to me, and I agree that this should be an area of greater emphasis.

I am glad that you are on the board Mystic. Thanks for your postings.

 

[ReillyT]

Are our contributions or effects statistically significant . . . certainly. BUT . . . are they practically significant . . . i.e. would the complete removal of our effects have any appreciable impact on the warming trend and its ultimate effects . . . probably not. So what is the likelihood that any conceivably feasible reductions in our effects would?

IOW, the scientists DO agree we are contributing to and exascerbating the effects . . . but none of them realistically think we can stop it or its ultimate effects. So why the hype and hysteria? We should be planning for living with those ultimate effects rather than disrupting our current activities in an essentailly futile effort to prevent the inevitable, IMO.

Just curious, but are you merely referring to a specific collection of studies that you have looked at, or are you saying that there is a consensus that a complete removal of our effects wouldn't have an appreciable effect, or that no reduction that we could feasibly undertake (even with the best efforts) would have an appreciable effect, or is there no consensus at all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps that even if it is occurring, and we are a partial cause, there is little that can be done to prevent it. I really have no idea, but without any scientific background, I admit that this sounds like a likely hypothesis.

However, as there is so much we don't know about climate and climate change, and the ramifications in human lives has the potential to be so great, doesn't it behoove us to continue studying and to reduce our emissions where we can if there is even a possibility it might make a difference.

That said, what you say about planning for living with the ultimate effects sounds very prudent to me, and I agree that this should be an area of greater emphasis.

I am glad that you are on the board Mystic. Thanks for your postings.

We ARE lowering our emissions, well the 1st world countries are. The up and coming countries do not care AND global warming by man zealots do NOT care that they are not. I have said all along we need to learn more about climate. We simply do not know enough to make the claims that the zealots make. For all intents and purposes it is a wild guess once you get very far out in the future.

We should be spending money on improving the science. We should be spending time and effort on helping emerging nations to become 1st world with OUT the huge pollution problems we went through.

Some of the so called alternate fuels are nothing more than a bait and switch game. Electric energy has to be CREATED, for example, and most is made with oil or coal. We can not realisticly convert large swatches of our edible foods to alternate fuel sources with out causing food shortages. Solar and wind and battery power are all viable but need a lot more research to make it smaller and more effective cost and power wise. Nuclear is HERE NOW. We should be using it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just curious, but are you saying that there is a consensus that a complete removal of our effects wouldn't have an appreciable effect, or that no reduction that we could feasibly undertake (even with the best efforts) would have an appreciable effect, or is there no consensus at all?

We do not KNOW if man is able to change what is happening. And it seems likely man can not appreciably effect the short term current trend. I read somewhere on this board that temperatures have quit rising since 1998. If true then the trend has already changed.

 

[ReillyT]

We do not KNOW if man is able to change what is happening. And it seems likely man can not appreciably effect the short term current trend. I read somewhere on this board that temperatures have quit rising since 1998. If true then the trend has already changed.

Well, I probably shouldn't even be talking about matters scientific at all, but even assuming that the temperature trend has shifted in the short term, that wouldn't necessarily (I think) mean that human activity doesn't have a short term effect. It may merely mean that other non-human related factors are offsetting human activity for the short term.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, I probably shouldn't even be talking about matters scientific at all, but even assuming that the temperature trend has shifted in the short term, that wouldn't necessarily (I think) mean that human activity doesn't have a short term effect. It may merely mean that other non-human related factors are offsetting human activity for the short term.

The point being that the zealots are full of shit. Gore and company make crap up and sell it as science, when it is anything BUT. The press and certain politicians eat it up like candy.