Posted by Phillip Noll on February 8, 2009 at 10:20 AM
You are entitled to your opinion. As a Earth Scientist (PhD in Geology) I can assure you that global warming is not a scam and is a serious threat to human life on this planet.
This post seems to have only one purpose--to create animosity on this forum. I hope Jim deletes it ASAP!
Phil, I don't see anything deliberately offensive here. It is certainly a hot topic and thus belongs here. As long as we keep the discussion civil there's no reason to censor anyone. I will keep an eye on the thread, though.
In the end people will believe what they want to believe. Even today there are news stories about holocaust deniers, and the Earth being flat. More and more people choose to spend their gift of life on fantasy worlds and manufactured realities. It's sad, but any way you look at it, and no matter who is right - future generations will have to deal with a world much much different than our own (and in my own opinion much worse) as a result of our collective actions. I feel fortunate to have real, tangible, wild, natural beauty to enjoy in my own lifetime. Not sure I'd want to be around to see what becomes of it some centuries (maybe even decades) from now.
Guy
Posted by Malcolm Castro on February 8, 2009 at 12:22 PM
The link supplied seems to me to be sensationalist for the explicit point of creating contraversy in order to grab market share. However, that is what drives the debate on both sides. There is a lot of very sketchy science used to "prove" and "disprove" all of the issues surrounding global warming. Everyone involved on all sides would rather rely on propoganda. And there is no shortage of that!
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM
After reading the link I wondered "who is John Coleman and what makes him an expert?". It turns out he graduated from college with a journalism degree and became a TV weatherman whose style is "happy talk", referring to thunderstorms and thundery showers as "Thorms" and "Thowers". He started the Weather Channel and was its CEO but was forced out and went back to being a weathercaster. A full bio can be read at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)>. He is a screen personality and businessman. IMHO he is not someone who has any credibility as an expert critic of climate and/or Earth science.
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Addendum: For some reason the post dropped the link I posted Look him up on Wikipedia.
Posted by Greg Maklae on February 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Mr Noll's request that posting be deleted, speaks volumes of how environmentalist want to control. Basically, you are entitled to your opinion as long as it agrees with mine. While some areas are warmer, others are cooler. This is the natural cycle of the planet, and has been going on since day one. There is no definite scientific proof that man is responsible for any change in CO2. People tend to look only at their life time and make assumptions, while ignoring the preceeding several billion years worth of data.
Greg, I don't think that's a fair statement. A big part of the political impasse comes from grouping people into camps like "environmentalists" or "conservatives" and claiming they are all the same. When you take the time to talk to individuals you often find conservatives who care for the environment, environmentalists who are fiscally conservative, and any number of other combinations. I think it's worth looking for common ground. You'll be surprised how many people, no matter what they believe, who will be turned off by punditry, will still listen to plain common sense.
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on February 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM
I find it hard to believe that anyone who takes nature photography seriously would go around bad-mouthing "environmentalists". Give me a break.
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 9, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Calling for the original post to be deleted was maybe a bit short-sighted. Presenting an alternative view would have been more appropriate. In the spirit of the “Hot Topics” forum, I’ll present some food for thought and further discussion.
When it comes to something as important as Global Warming and its consequences, I am more apt to listen to, and believe, people who have dedicated a good deal of their adult lives to meticulous research and discovery and then subjected their work to critical international peer review and publication in respected journals rather than some TV personality with no scientific credentials, no record of peer reviewed research, nor a critical evaluation of the facts who just happens to have access to a web page. Just because someone puts something on the web doesn’t make them an expert. In my opinion, the piece referenced by the OP presents misinformation and does humanity a great disservice by clouding the evidence with emotion, loose associations, hearsay, and conjecture. Not exactly a solid foundation to build your beliefs on! Especially when your actions that stem from those beliefs could have tremendous consequences for your children and grandchildren.
Yes, unfortunately there is sensationalism on both sides of the Global Warming debate. It can be very difficult to wade through all the rhetoric and get to the facts. However, I can tell you that getting research published is not easy. You have be dedicated. You have to do your absolute best, most OBJECTIVE work, submit it to experts for critical review, and if your work is shoddy you WILL be called on it! You will not be published and you will not be taken seriously. There are orders of magnitude more rigor involved in publishing research than posting your opinion-piece on your web page! So I ask you, where do YOU get your information?
The great thing about the Scientific Method is that it is self-correcting (although it can take some time for these corrections). The problem is that we may not have the luxury of time with respect to Global Warming. Sure, we can wait, and conduct more experiments, and take more measurements, refine our theories, and not jump to conclusions. But its quite possible that by the time we find out the truth, it may be too late. On the other hand, it could turn out that Global Warming is a natural and temporary event. But are you willing to make such a gamble? The consequences are too terrifying for me.
As an alternative we can assume that Global Warming IS caused by human activity and we can act. Right now! What is the worst that could happen by taking action now? We could develop alternative and cleaner forms of energy. We could develop more efficient and cleaner vehicles. We could eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. We could greatly reduce the risk of oil spills and other types of contamination. We could create new jobs. We could have cleaner air, water, and land and be more responsible stewards of our only home. And if it turns out that the mean global temperatures drop as we clean up our act then I can live with that! Will it be difficult? You bet it will. Will it require sacrifice? You bet it will. Is it the right thing to do?
Someone once said “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.” What we have done for the last 100 or so years has resulted in a polluted planet with the threat of possible devastating consequences. Should we keep on doing more of the same and hope for a different outcome? (That, by the way, is Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity!) Or should we, as the dominant species, grow up, take responsibility, and clean up our planet? For if its not Global Warming, then maybe it will be poisoned water, or polluted air, or contaminated land that does us in. Global Warming is only one potential outcome of our rampant disregard for our environment.
And what if, despite all our efforts to clean up the earth, global temperatures continue to rise? I would argue that humanity will be in a far better position to deal with that situation than we would be if we continue down our current path. Think about it.
As for being labeled an “Environmentalist---I thank you very much! I accept that label with immense pride. I AM an environmentalist. I have a deep and profound love and respect for planet earth and all her creatures. Nothing moves me more than being in the wilderness. Nothing reaffirms my belief in God more than being alive and able to witness the complexity and the beauty (and forgiveness) of our planet. And nothing causes me more distress than seeing humanity pollute its only home in the name of greed. Environmentalists don't want "control". They want people to act responsibly and with concern for their fellow man, all species, and all to come. The earth is the greatest gift. Treat it as such.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 9, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Global climate change is a reality. I've never been positive it's "our fault," but that doesn't matter. Whether it's natural or man-made, if climate change is drastic enough to kill us off, we probably better get busy doing something definitive about it, and since it takes a long time to have an impact on something so large, we have to start before we know how bad it's going to get.
It is disappointing that GCC has been labeled global warming by the mainstream press, because of course now if we get a year with cooler temps it appears to give the lie to the concept when in fact it does not.
It's also disappointing that GCC is seen as the latest "cause" by those who view environmentalists as an alarmist, hand-wringing community that seeks to inflame people.
Perhaps most disappointing to me personally is the fact that there are too many people on both sides who pick a side because they like a fight. These people convince themselves it's the issues that drive them when it's really just a personal need to attack someone else. Meanwhile, whether GCC is human-caused or not, whether it's going to be severe enough to kill off our and other species or not, we need to be reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution not because of the latest fashionable crisis in the environmental community, but because these goals have always been responsible and worth achieving.
The earth is our house, and if we don't keep our house clean we will, as a species, catch ill and eventually die out.
Guy Tal I couldnt have said it better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Even today there are news stories about holocaust deniers, and the Earth being flat. More and more people choose to spend their gift of life on fantasy worlds and manufactured realities)
BEAUTY @ REALITY ARE IN THE MIND @ EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 10, 2009 at 11:27 PM
I personally think the earth actually is in a warming cycle. It would be foolish to think that temps remain basically the same centuries after centuries. Where I am now sitting there was once a wall of ice about a mile thick, and that was a mere 10,000 years ago. There have been periods in earth's history that the entire globe was covered in ice, and also periods where there were no ice caps at all. It's entirely believeable the planet is warming at the moment. It's very dynamic. One of the things that has really hurt the discussion for the general public though has been hysteria by Hollywood types (who mostly have nothing more than a high school education) or Al Gore cashing in on the deal. Looking past these kinds of distracting clowns you will see there are indeed some very thoughtful and educated people who take it seriously. While I highly doubt it will seriously harm us as a species because we've adapted to even more drastic climates during the past three million years, it could well cause some major disruptions we will need to deal with constructively. FWIW, I too think the OP showed up mainly to inflame.
Kent, if a medical doctor tells you that you have a certain illness and this is what you should do, you believe him or her. Why?
If an engineer tells you that a bridge is unstable and you should not go onto it, you believe him. Why?
If a chemist tells you that you need to mix chemical A and B to get chemical C, you believe him. Why?
If a physicist tells you need to use some formula to calculate the trajectory of a baseball, you believe him. Why?
You trust these people because their statements are based on meticulously researched , hard won knowledge.
If the vast majority of the world's climatologists, from many, many years of meticulous research tell you that global warming is NOT a natural cycle, but is due to human activity, you DON'T believe them. WHY?
Posted by Steve Foss on February 12, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Cristoph, I won't respond for Kent, but a credible answer to your final "why" question is one that many thinking people consider worth putting forth: "Because the doctors, the engineers, the chemists, the physicists and the climatologists have all been wrong before. Why not this time, too?"
Steve, if you asked 20 of the recognized/proven best doctors in the world if you had cancer and 18 said definitely yes with the other two saying it's likely, will you start cancer treatment?
With such odds and so much at stake would it not make more sense to take preventive measures first and see if they were right later?
Steve, then to be consistent, you should not trust any doctors, scientists or engineers and simply go ahead and do what you "feel" is right.
I am a scientist, and I have to express my frustration at people, who are not scientists themselves, or who do not understand the scientific process, yet feel they know more than what these people have researched meticulously. Science is a very rigorous process, and trust me, if there is a crack pot or somebody who has a wrong theory, they will be told by their peers.
Sure, there are individial scientists, engineers, doctors who make wrong statements, but you won't have thousands of scientists agree collectively, after very stringent data taking and analysis, that global warming is induced by humans. Don't you think that they actually have taken into account all the scenarios such as warming cycles, solar cycles etcc???? They are not that stupid!
Posted by Steve Foss on February 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Sorry Guy and Cristoph, I wasn't defending the philosophy, simply pointing out it's a way many approach the issue. I do in fact think it's at least partly our fault that the climate is warming, and I believe that based on the science I've read, but tend not to want to be too outspoken and emotional about such things, and also tend to try to look at it from the other point of view. Too long in journalism and too long out of environmental activism, I guess.
Farther up in the thread I said this:
Meanwhile, whether GCC is human-caused or not, whether it's going to be severe enough to kill off our and other species or not, we need to be reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution not because of the latest fashionable crisis in the environmental community, but because these goals have always been responsible and worth achieving.
The earth is our house, and if we don't keep our house clean we will, as a species, catch ill and eventually die out.
The earth won't care, but I suspect we will.
So, yes, I definitely believe preventive measures are in order.
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM
... been wrong before. Why not this time, too?"
So you would rather sit back, continue as usual, and HOPE they are wrong? What if they are RIGHT?
Science is not (usually) about absolutes. Researchers gather data in the best ways they can and try to interpret it in a way that supports the observations. Their proposed theories and models are then subjected to intense scrutiny. Some are shown to be wrong. A few stand up. More and more researchers collect more and more data and propose new and better theories. Eventually the theories converge into a scenario that has a very high probability of being correct. Science self-corrects. Its a continuum. Its rarely (never?) absolute. The biggest problem is that these corrections take time. Sometimes decades or even centuries. I'm not sure we have that kind of time.
Climatic predictions are based on extremely complex models that have a multitude of variables. The models are refined continuously as new and better data come in. Many currently suggest that human activity is responsible for the rise in mean global temperatures. This is based on painstaking work by the smartest people on the planet. It is not clouded in emotion, religion, politics, beliefs, or wishful thinking. This information is based on hard work by very intelligent people and is currently the best that is out there. Take it seriously! This isn't the time to be believing in Punxsutawney Phil!
Personally, I think the current generation has a responsibility towards future generations. We should be doing everything we can to make the world a better and cleaner place for those who come after us. The Earth is very forgiving but eventually it will reach its limit and by then it will be too late for us. The Earth is not a "resource" to be "consumed"! It is our only home---we have nowhere else to go.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM
So you would rather sit back, continue as usual, and HOPE they are wrong?
Since you quoted me at the start of your post, Phillip, I assume you're replying to me. And my answer to your question is: No, as I've already said farther up in this thread and again in my reply to Cristoph and Guy.
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 12, 2009 at 12:16 PM
We must have been writing at the same time as I didn't see your response to Cristoph and Guy until just now. In fact, I didn't see Christoph's or Guys responses either! Guess I should write faster!
Yes, indeed you did state that previously! My response wasn't targeted directly at you but more at the "attitude" of many people that "scientists have been wrong before so why not again"? I cringe when I hear people using such an argument instead of trying to make an informed intelligent decision that is not biased by "feelings" or "beliefs". For some reason some folks seem to think that scientists have some political agenda and are making all this up for personal gain (or to take away something from everyone else). While there may be a few with political (or other non-science) motivations, from my experience nothing could be farther from the truth. Most scientists are interested in---science! They report what the data tells them. And there is concern that the data is telling an alarming story.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM
As a meteorologist with an MS in Atmospheric Science, i also have an opinion on this subject, which i'll keep brief, since ive beat my head against the wall too many times trying to get through to people whose minds are permanently sealed.
Guy is correct that the scientific consensus over Anthropogenic Climate Change is approaching "spherical earth" numbers, see for example: Here
I am a trained skeptic (ex-lawyer) and love to take the unpopular stand on issues, but common sense and years of studying radiative forcing and understanding the science led me to some rather inevitable conclusions. If you are in denial, either free your mind of idealogical preconceptions and political bias, and do some real homework on the issue (rather than swallowing every bit of nonsense that floats around the internet), or do as some of the above comments have suggested and accept that changes in our behavior would be a positive thing, regardless of whether anthropogenic GW is "real" or not.
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Global warming is actually caused by the number of working pirates. During the last warm period, circa 1000AD through 1600AD there were significant numbers of pirates working worldwide. Since then piracyhas been significantly reduced causing cooler temperatures. Now piracy is growing again thus creating the optimum conditions for the surge in global warming. With the recent capture of 26 pirates off Somalia the temperatures should again be on the decrease.
As a not stupid person that is not a scientist, I would be interested in reviewing factual information rather than newspaper articles or statements of faith. Phil, as you are a PhD, I will hope you know where the appropriate scientific studies on this topic can be found. Please post the link or links so I can review the science.
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Also……Many Universities have websites dedicated to Global Warming/Climate Change. Just Google “University Climate Change” and you will find a wealth of information direct from university researchers.
And if the Pirate Correlation mentioned by Ross has a correlation coefficient greater than 98%, I suggest this website: http://www.yarr.org.uk/talk/
Edit: For some reason there is a limit to how many tags ([bold], [url], etc..) you can put in a post. Don't know why.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 13, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Thanks, Phillip!
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Does this mean anything in relation to global warming?
An updated analysis of observed stratospheric temperature variability and trends is presented on the basis of satellite, radiosonde, and lidar observations. Satellite data include measurements from the series of NOAA operational instruments, including the Microwave Sounding Unit covering 1979–2007 and the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) covering 1979–2005. Radiosonde results are compared for six different data sets, incorporating a variety of homogeneity adjustments to account for changes in instrumentation and observational practices. Temperature changes in the lower stratosphere show cooling of ∼0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979–2007, with some differences in detail among the different radiosonde and satellite data sets. Substantially larger cooling trends are observed in the Antarctic lower stratosphere during spring and summer, in association with development of the Antarctic ozone hole. Trends in the lower stratosphere derived from radiosonde data are also analyzed for a longer record (back to 1958); trends for the presatellite era (1958–1978) have a large range among the different homogenized data sets, implying large trend uncertainties. Trends in the middle and upper stratosphere have been derived from updated SSU data, taking into account changes in the SSU weighting functions due to observed atmospheric CO2 increases. The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km. Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995–2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements. Updated estimates of the solar cycle influence on stratospheric temperatures show a statistically significant signal in the tropics (∼30°N–S), with an amplitude (solar maximum minus solar minimum) of ∼0.5 K (lower stratosphere) to ∼1.0 K (upper stratosphere).
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 13, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Interesting thread here. I just love the pirate theory and I think Ross should have a go at it. Who knows, maybe the theory will hold water.
Philip, I am glad that as a scientist you are willing to let the nay-sayers speak their mind. Science is about finding truth and not silencing others you disagree with on political/social/religious/scientific matters. One hears about some scientists making comments to the AMS that anyone who disagrees should be tossed from the society. How does censorship help the credibility of a debate?
I wonder at times if some of the hard feelings towards the scientists comes from hearing them speak about climate matters and then, when they are off the stage, make very hard, sometimes very politically slanted comments. Where does politics fall in this effort and why does the scientist appear to be so strongly biased? "Joe public", recognizes the bias and, since they are used to seeing political wheels greased, starts to believe the correlation between politics and science is not about truth, but instead the funding of science and politics. Those scientists that survive in the field must have a bias that supports the political machine. Those that disagree and shouted down in debates and their publications/presentations are disallowed.
It could also be difficult for "Joe Public" to believe a climate forecast when the local 5 day forecast is often so wrong. The public would have to wonder why (what appears to them) the same numerical model can be so wrong in one week, but it is supposed to be right in 200 years. The public is not (often) told when/where/why the models are wrong and what assumptions go into the models. These assumptions may be based upon the best information available, but when information is hidden the solution comes into question.
There is the question of how one will not harm the local economy while helping the climate globally. For example, we can restrict our emissions to the nth degree, but if China, India and other countries don't follow, but instead increase emissions will it really matter? It is up to the political leaders to come to a global agreement on the issue and actually hold to the bargain. But there are issues with trust and honesty in reporting with all people that leaves folks skeptical about the outcome. Just look at the political environment in this country. How many people will trust their political representative (regardless of affiliation)? Having a high ranking state senator as a neighbor and having talked to him and other political big shots, they have said to me that there is a lot of lip service when out with the general public and personally motivated actions in private. How can I trust even my neighbor who represents me when I am told these things happen?
edit
And just one other comment. I am not trying to make light of cancer, but I just have to question the use of this example.
A while back I sat on the wrong side of the table with an oncologist and had been given some tough news. He explained the options and for forth and we made the decision(s) that had to be made. And at the end he said something that stuck with me. He said something like:
"As you ponder this situation you will start to think about why this happened. When you ask a patient, about 90% of them will know why the cancer occurred. If you ask the doctor, about 90% will have no explanation why. It is an interesting statistic, and no, I do not know why this has happened."
So while science believes they know why this is happening, does mankind really know enough to fully answer the question? I realize this has been already addressed with a "best educated guess" and "insurance policy" solution. But are we leaving room for the unknown?
/edit
Just some comments and not a statement on where I stand on this issue.
S
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Ross, I don't think this has anything to do with global warming. They are talking about the stratosphere which is above the troposphere (the troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere closest to the surface of the earth). The temperature of the air in the troposphere decreases as you go up in elevation (that's why its cold on mountaintops!). In the stratosphere the temperature changes in the opposite direction because it is heated by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. They are reporting temperature trends (with large uncertainties) in this higher level of the atmosphere which would most likely be related to variations in the amount of solar radiation. That's my guess anyway--I'm not an atmospheric scientist (I'm a geologist). Perhaps Stan will chime in??
Posted by Phillip Noll on February 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Steve, you've hit on some very good points! Not to stereotype anyone but a lot of scientists are not very good at explaining their research to the public (nor very tactful--not out of malice but just because the road to an advanced science degree is not a very social one--so, for many, those skills suffer a bit).
To get a PhD I had to pass a qualifying exam. One of the questions I was asked was to convince Joe Public why my research was necessary and why the public should pay for it. It was a VERY difficult, and humbling, thing to do--I constantly slipped into techno-speak and the prof would say "What? I don't understand. How does that help me?" And I would start again. And again....( I'm not sure I ever succeeded!--but they passed me anyway ).
As a researcher you will reach a point of extreme specialization and its very difficult to talk with people who don't have that same point of reference. Some scientists come across as smug or indifferent or condescending but I think its mostly because of a lack of good communication skills. Kinda ironic actually. Many scientists are extremely passionate (just as we are about photography) and once passion creeps in it sometimes becomes harder and harder to be tactful and have an open mind. Then there are the few who are just plain jerks. Despite Gary Larson's (The Far Side) best efforts at depicting scientists otherwise, scientists are human after all and have all the same shortcomings as anyone else. I think a part of the curriculum for any advanced degree should be courses and workshops in communication! Censorship doesn't help the debate or the scientist's case. Open discussion and dialog and education do.
Its likewise difficult to explain that your 5-day forecast from the local weather caster (Stan--please jump in and correct me!! ) probably came from a desktop PC in a matter of minutes and climate change models run on CRAY SuperComputers for days (if not weeks). To them, a computer model is a computer model. To a scientist its night and day! How do you efficiently communicate that to the general public?
And yes there is indeed a lot of pressure on scientists in terms of funding for their research. It is absolutely cut-throat. Some are very good at schmoozing with politicians and heads of funding agencies and getting some leverage in their direction. Most are not. Scientists probably spend more time writing proposals than actually conducting research. Most proposals are shot down. The pressure is tremendous because most researchers have to go out and find money to even pay their own (and their student's) salaries! That puts a different slant on things! That level of competition can bring out some less desirable qualities in the average human.
As far as what the rest of the world does.....that's more difficult topic for debate! As the saying goes, you can "Think Globally and Act Locally". Every little bit helps. Unfortunately our media is motivated by ratings and money---not what is sound science or reporting. Most people, even our politicians, take this reporting at face-value. Lets face it, who has the time to seek out facts? With so much misinformation and sensationalism out there and such a fast-paced society its very difficult to see though the fog and make any rational, intelligent, informed decisions. How do we counter this? Wish I knew. Maybe it has to start in our schools? I don't know.
I think we need a global paradigm shift towards helping all of humanity succeed and being more responsible to our planet. Those who are "in the know" or who develop new technologies or energy sources should share them worldwide instead of "cashing in" at the expense of Planet Earth and the whole of humanity. You can create a new technology, sell it to the highest bidder, and get filthy rich. And while that may be good for you it doesn't help your descendants, your species, or your planet. In my opinion, people need to get past the "me, now" paradigm and think about the future of humanity and behave accordingly. Its a "hard sell" for sure but what is the alternative?
Whew, my brain hurts. Break time!
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 13, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Phillip,
Wow! I am surprised your fingers don't hurt as well.
Just a few comments. I will try to be concise.
1) I agree with the personality issues. Some times a PhD scientists have spent decades studying problems and feel they are right no matter what (when were they ever wrong in school?). It is an arguement of ego and not facts. Some times one has spent a decade working the problem the wrong way and it is difficult to admit an error of ways to some punk kid who is just starting out. And yes, some PhD folks are just plain jerks (I am not pointing fingers here!) This all doesn't help promote research findings and provide "Joe Public" with truthful information. What it tells the public is that they don't want to be that "smart" because life would suck without good friends.
2) Publish or perish is the nature of the beast. A scientist does not want to loose a job as much as the next guy and if you can eliminate competition you do it. (See, it's not personal. It's business!) If one can schmooze and get a sugar daddy in the system, you do it. And then you set yourself up in the "ivory tower" and let the funding come rolling in. Sounds great.... But where is truth, honesty and integrity in this? It's the nature of the beast, however.
3) While it is a nice concept that people think of others before themselves, very few can practice it. Some might say it is the sinful nature of man, others might say it is the animal instinct. Whatever it is, I don't think we will see this happening any time soon. One used to hear about peace, love, the brotherhood of man and that we shouldn't trust anyone over the age of 30. Now those folks are getting over the age of 60 and the next generation is watching those 60 year olds at "Big Bank Co." taking home all of the chips and living the good life. Those "kids" in their 20's want that too and they are being taught by example.
4) Short range forecast models are actually very complex tools that also require the mighty super computers. Their curse is they have more details to go along with the shorter forecast time. So what all did that climate model omit that is in the short term forecast? What did they add? What else needs to be added? Very few people know the answer to these questions.
S
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Philip and Steve I truely appreciate your comment. I am interested in the subject and do care. But as Philip points out I am a "Joe Public" but I still want an explanation more instructive than a newspaper article that says 100's or 1000's of scientists agree. Big deal probably most are social scientists. My degree is in anthropology (so long ago I forgot what it is) and I work as a risk manager. But I am always amazed at threads that profess great certainty about global warming, the causes and solutions and when asked for specifics can give nothing better than the pirate theory.
I will agree it is warming but I am not sure it will continue nor am I sure of all the causes or what the single cause may be. In the 1970's scientists and Big Al where touting a new ice age. Scientists new about CO2 gases then. What changed? Just looking for meaningful information.
Thanks
Ross
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Ross,
Let me blather and see if I can muddy up the water a little.
I am a little young to recall the 1970's, but wasn't it the "nuclear winter" theory that Sagan was promoting. "Tricky Dick" had his finger on the button and we were going to blow-up the world. Then those that survived the US-USSR conflict would find a world with a lot of bomb dust in the stratosphere. That dust would block the sunlight for years and it would get really cold on the surface until the dust settled out. (But Peter Sellers helped us learn to relax and love the bomb.)
I think scientists knew about CO2 back then and were monitoring its climb, but there was also that strange ozone drop over Antartica every October that was getting attention. Finally it was shown that Chloroflorocarbons from the deodorant cans were introducing a blocking mechanism in the stratospheric ozone production and it took a while for the block to be worked around. CFC's use was reduced and the ozone hole will be gone in another 100 to 200 years. With that mystery solved in the late 70's, and the political climate changing our attention was directed back to CO2.
Computer models were starting to get into fashion back in the late 70's as well. They were crude tools, but useful at testing theories. One of those areas was the warming effects of CO2. The problem is we don't fully understand the sources and sinks of carbon (and this is true even today). The computers are getting faster every year and the computer models more complex, but they still don't account for every possibility at this time. I like to point to the effects of aerosols on the climate change problem. Back in the late 70's/early 80's there would be forecasts of global warming of something like 10F +/- 6F (most of the uncertainty being related to aerosols). Now the understanding has increased and we see reports on the line of 2 to 3C warming with and uncertainty of 1.5 to 2C (again aerosols/pollution is the dominant source of error). (I am probably off a little with the numbers and no time period, but the point is that aerosols is the dominant source of uncertainty and it has not changed over the past 20 to 30 years).
I think you will find that few will dispute the data showing the temperature warming. What is happening to cause the warming is in question (urbanization, pollution, sensor changes, solar changes,etc). Besides fully understanding the carbon cycle there is questions to the effects of emissions and pollution transport/evolution on the global climate. Since the chemical reactions that take place in the pollution is not understood as well as the interaction of pollution with sunlight and clouds, it is difficult to be more certain about the results of a computer forecast. This is where research needs to take place - pollution and how it interacts with the weather and sunlight.
And then there is the most important change - [deleted word] funding. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers. Scientists have turned into political activists so that they can continue to work. This transition rewards them with funding and big prizes, but, alas, it brings their entire work into question. What is truth and what is political grand standing is unclear. It is hard to trust the results when they are seen with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. At times it appears that the scientist is repeating political rhetoric and dogma rather than speaking truth. One just doesn't know if their words are trustworthy given the company they are keeping. (e.g., So you say the world is warming. Is this really true or are you crying wolf to get the funding you so desperately need? Given the political figures at your side I can't figure out what is truth or fiction).
While the science it improving its overall understanding, the strange bed fellows that are needed is making the debate hard to understand. I can appreciate your uncertainty and questioning the results. It's hard enough keeping up with things when you have just a little understanding.
S
Posted by Louis Neal on February 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Looks like Rob's original post accomplished its goal
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Steven, I appreciate your candor. Politics creates more prostitutes than pimps create. Long live Blago. Actually I am a Huey Long fan. There was a politician!
Al Gore in is early years after college was a proponent of the coming ice age theory. As I rememeber "nuclear winter" was not part of the theory. Now with Al Gore promoting global warming, to make millions off of carbon credits, the theory is immediately suspect to me.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 13, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Louis, while I do think the OP was trolling for controversy based on the frowning angry arguing emoticons in the initial post, I think this thread so far is working out quite well. Lots of variety of opinion on what has been a rote debate on so many boards, and also a sincere desire to discuss and learn about the issue. In these online hot topic forums (echoing a well known Aretha Franklin song), success is so often spelled R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
And so, like the OP, I also add the . . .
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 13, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Steve
Thanks for the comments of support and noting I am not trying to start a fight. Just tossing my ignorance and $.02 into the thread.
Ross,
Had to wiki Huey Long. Interesting person. And I would agree with your comment regarding Al Gore bringing doubt to the climate change field. What does a politician really know about the science if he did not devote his career to the field? Is he really after political/financial gain? I don't have answers.
First, as a scientist I am particularly intrigued by "And then there is the most important change - political funding." Hold on, since when has the US government or any other government have an agenda to promote the idea of global warming???? If anything, they have tried to deny it, not give it attention- why would a climatologist ever think that promoting the global warming idea would give them funds? In fact they are more likely to get less funding - except nowadays, because there is growing consensus.
Second, are you telling me that thousands of scientists, the vast majority of climatologists, are signing a global warming declaration because they are looking for funding or are having a political agenda? Come on!
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Christoph, is there any scientific debate on the existence of global warming among climatologists? If so what percentage believe in global warming? Of those that believe in global warming, what percentage believe it is totally due to human activity, what percentage believe it is partially due to human activity and what percentage believe it is a natural change? The source of your statistics would be appreciated. As a scientist you can appreciate the importance of accurate data.
Thanks
Ross
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Chris,
First of all, as I noted earlier I am speaking with ignorance so I can easily be way off base. I am not a climate change expert. And again, I am not saying that I am pro or against climate change. I am trying to present views or questions that I have heard expressed (playing devil's advocate?). I apologize if I have offended anyone by not trying to take sides.
I did not consider the US scientist being only a government scientist, but rather a university scientist. (Government agencies like NASA probably do get funding for climate change research as well.) Political funding was probably not the correct word. I probably should have said something like funds from nationally supported research agencies like the NSF). And if there is money to study climate change coming from those agencies then there is a funding distribution process that takes place. This would be the reviewed proposal and here is where the competition (peer review?) gets tough. Why couldn't there be a filtering of approved work at this step?
As for the vast majority of climatologists signing a letter stating global warming is real, I thought there was a news article recently on this somewhere. It was something like 95% of climatologists are pro climate change. Only 64% of meteorologists and less outside the field. And someone related to the climate change community pointed to these numbers and said that it proves that climatologists know best. After all, they are the trained experts. A cynic might say that it only shows that doubters have been filtered out of the climate field. Why else would trained meteorologists, a group that also has some training in climatology and quite capable of understanding the science, have a strong difference of opinion? This could be a strange survey result as climatologists and meteorologists might often be considered experts in the same field by "Joe Public".
S
Posted by Ross Warner on February 13, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Here is an interesting conclusion. It doesn't clearly sound like these scientists are certain current global warming is caused solely by human activity.
"The workshop and the papers in this volume show that the earth's climate is always changing, and that gradual changes, periodic variations, and sudden shifts are all characteristic of this natural propensity for change. The Climate Research Committee concludes that the climate fluctuations of the last few millennia were as varied and extensive as any of those observed over the last few decades, though modern climate seems to be intriguingly close to the warmest limits of our poorly documented record of natural variability over the past several thousand years (see Jones and Briffa's paper in Chapter 2). Modeling studies do suggest that climate is very sensitive to relatively small perturbations in key locations. For example, subtle changes in the air/ sea/ice interaction of the high-latitude North Atlantic may lead to abrupt changes in ocean circulation and Northern Hemisphere climate. If one of these disproportionate responses were triggered by an anthropogenic effect, climate could be altered more rapidly than the past record would lead us to expect.
The magnitude of the climate changes indicated by records of natural variability, and the rapidity with which they have taken place, suggest that society should expect significant climate change even if anthropogenic influence is minimized. We need to understand and be able to predict this change so that we can adapt to it or modify our contribution to it. Given our recent advances in documenting past climate change, monitoring modern climate processes, and improving process and coupled atmosphere-ocean models, the study of natural climate variability represents an area of great scientific opportunity—one that is important not only for guiding policy, but for understanding how our present biological and geochemical environment evolved and learning to predict how it may respond to natural variations or anthropogenic changes."
Natural Climate Variability On Decade-to-Century Time Scales
Climate Research Committee
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Research Council
I too believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, but I am skeptical as to the extent. From everything I have read and just plain old common sense, the sun, the oceans, and their mysterious cycles probably have more to do with the variable climate over the millennia than man-made greenhouse gasses. We simply do not know much...and we know a lot less than we think we know.
I am, however, fully in favor of significantly reducing the burning of fossil fuels for this, and many, many other reasons. What has always bothered me about this debate, however, is the lack of respect for those with differing points of view. Saying "The science is settled" is just plain incorrect. Sensational threats (see GWB and the "War on Terror") intimidation, and name-calling does not advance our understanding of climate change. That goes for both sides of this debate. You are not a "communist" if you believe one thing nor are you a "Flat Earther" if you believe another.
As an environmentalist, I fear the reputation of the entire environmental movement now rests on the validity of this one theory. That bothers me too. If the planet does experience a 20-30 year cooling period, as many respected (albeit,in the minority) climatologists believe, the credibility of all real and known environmental issues can be too easily dismissed by those who do not value wild places and a clean, healthy environment.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM
As an environmentalist, I fear the reputation of the entire environmental movement now rests on the validity of this one theory. That bothers me too. If the planet does experience a 20-30 year cooling period, as many respected (albeit,in the minority) climatologists believe, the credibility of all real and known environmental issues can be too easily dismissed by those who do not value wild places and a clean, healthy environment.
This is one of my prime concerns as well. The environmentalist community often is dismissed as moving from cause to cause and trying to inflame public sentiment with drama rather than science. I don't agree with that assessment, but it's a pretty common one among people outside the community. The national debate on GCC has become far more strident than any other environmental issue I can recall in the last 25 years (which is as long as I've been involved in environmental issues). Maybe the debate over nuclear energy in the 70s was this big, but I wasn't paying much attention then.
Now that we have an administration and a balance of Congress that believes GCC is anthropogenic, I suspect there'll be less debate about GCC as a reality, and the debate will shift more toward which steps are most appropriate as we move forward.
My frequently stated position is that we must markedly decrease pollution for a host of reasons, only one of which is to reduce any impact we have on climate. If the current push to reduce pollutants comes from GCC, that works just fine for me.
Posted by Ross Warner on February 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Richard, I would agree that significantly reducing fossil fuel use is a rational goal. But, it should not be a messianic religion as it is to some. My concern is the "environmentalists" (the ones that are the most vocerifious and ill informed) are the ones driving the environmental train. They are against nuclear (oooh scary) or wind farms (view shed issues and dead birds) too name two alternative energey sources with "environmental" problems. If I couId afford to build a wind turbine on my property I would. But as long as it is not economical I will use natural gas and electricty. Oh by the way, I don't believe it is the government's job to make "alternative energy" economical though the creative use of taxpayer dollars or draconian restrictions on current energy sources. In North Dakota we have oil, coal, and more wind turbines per person than most (or al) other states. And we do it all taking into account the habitat of the thirteen-lined ground squirrel.
Ross
Posted by Stan Rose on February 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Ive only had time for a quick scan of the latter posts, but here's a quick repsonse:
Ross, Phillip is correct about the stratospheric temps not having a bearing on the temperature here on the ground, partly depends on how they defined the "stratosphere" (didnt read the article) but a cooler stratospheric could easily mean a warmer lower atmosphere! Phillip, you made a minor mistake in saying that our 5 day forecasts are run on desktops--in fact they are also run on the Crays, you are thinking of local or regional models that use the boundary conditions of the NAM or GFS etc.
Steven, there are a number of reasons why mets are less likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change: Many mets do not have advanced degrees, so their knowlege of physics and modeling is less than people who have gone through grad courses; their understanding is more limited to short term (weather) phenomena. Most mets have been burned many times by model-based forecasts that turned out to be wrong, so they tend to be more skeptical (Since my short term forecast sucked, how can they get a long term one right?). This again is based on a lack of understanding of climate and modeling. Personally, I think interseasonal or seasonal forecasts of temps are really shaky, but that doesnt make me any more skeptical of long-term climate changes based on greenhouse gas forcing. Finally, mets have a large number of individuals who have a military background (cause thats where a large number of met jobs are!). I suspect that folks in the military tend to be somewhat more conservative than others (correct me if im wrong) and unofrtunately, ones political bent is pretty decisive on this issue!
Posted by Steven Peckham on February 22, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Stan,
Interesting comments.
I would have thought that most met office folks are getting Masters degrees by now and have had some modeling experience. Of course, there is a lot more training that goes into a PhD in climatology and with it a lot better understanding of model building. And while the met office folks tend not to trust models due to being burned every now and then, could the opposite be said about climate scientists trusting their models too much? (Of course the methodologies by which the models are evaluated can be quite different at times). Also, it is interesting that you see a conservative bias with the military folks you encounter. I tend to see a liberal bias around my office. Why would being a liberal stop someone from wanting to serve their country? I would hope and trust that every citizen, while they might disagree on some political policies, would still care very deeply for this country and want to make it better for future generations. The way to improve the country could even include serving in the military (thank you to all of you who have served). And when it comes to pollution issues, of which greenhouse gases could be considered, why wouldn't a conservative want a cleaner environment? Of course, this was stated much more eloquently in earlier responses (e.g., Ross, Guy). These are rhetorical questions and not intended to be answered.
Mr Noll's request that posting be deleted, speaks volumes of how environmentalist want to control. Basically, you are entitled to your opinion as long as it agrees with mine. While some areas are warmer, others are cooler. This is the natural cycle of the planet, and has been going on since day one. There is no definite scientific proof that man is responsible for any change in CO2. People tend to look only at their life time and make assumptions, while ignoring the preceeding several billion years worth of data.
Um, Jim, that wasnt Rob's quote in fairness to him.
But i hear you, it's hard to believe that some people actually make that argument fervently. Of course, we all have microchips implanted in our brains by the government, so they can control our thoughts and keep us from seeing the wisdom of these alternative views...
"If you don't believe in God, you will believe anything !!" - Rob Kempton
Just finding it interesting that, despite there being no scientific proof of God, you still believe in him.
I'd argue that there's more scientific proof supporting global warming than there is supporting the existence of a God. With all due respect, how do you reconcile the double standard?
Posted by Ross Warner on April 5, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Peter, I agree we must "doing something." The issue is what should be done. That is where the disagreements are. It would be nice to do something that has a scientific basis rather that based on opinion or the belief we have to do something, anything, we're all going to die. Oh, and yes we are.
Sorry,
You guys can worry you little hearts to death over this whole (man made ) global warming thing all you want . Its just another agenda by the mother earth group . You know the one's , they say it's bad to have ( any )children or bad to drive a car . If it makes you guy feel so high and mighty believing this junk science good fro ya . Just don't expect me/us to fall for your feel good bull . Some of you just love telling us how many kids we should have , the car we should drive . the way my house should be built , how i do my job , if i should own a gun or hunt and try to control just about everything i do . You/me are just a speck on this big earth and God will decide when we/us are done here , not your evil so called man made global warming . Worry all you want if it make you feel better !!
Posted by David Bostedo on April 11, 2009 at 8:54 PM
..if i should own a gun
Conflating multiple issues while trying to make a point about a specific one is not a good way to win an argument. Gun ownership has nothing to do with global warming, other than it tends to get lumped together as some sort of anti-gun/pro-earth agenda. (And this by people on both sides of each argument.) Not having clear goals and positions on particular points being discussed is a sure fire way to never agree on anything, and never get anything accomplished.
As someone who isn't certain to what extent man is harming the environment, I'd love to see some non-junk science on both sides. But Rob, all you've shown is the initial posting, which is pretty obviously junkier science than anything brought forth by others in this thread.
Discussion
56 replieshttp://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
This post seems to have only one purpose--to create animosity on this forum. I hope Jim deletes it ASAP!
In the end people will believe what they want to believe. Even today there are news stories about holocaust deniers, and the Earth being flat. More and more people choose to spend their gift of life on fantasy worlds and manufactured realities. It's sad, but any way you look at it, and no matter who is right - future generations will have to deal with a world much much different than our own (and in my own opinion much worse) as a result of our collective actions. I feel fortunate to have real, tangible, wild, natural beauty to enjoy in my own lifetime. Not sure I'd want to be around to see what becomes of it some centuries (maybe even decades) from now.
Guy
Guy
When it comes to something as important as Global Warming and its consequences, I am more apt to listen to, and believe, people who have dedicated a good deal of their adult lives to meticulous research and discovery and then subjected their work to critical international peer review and publication in respected journals rather than some TV personality with no scientific credentials, no record of peer reviewed research, nor a critical evaluation of the facts who just happens to have access to a web page. Just because someone puts something on the web doesn’t make them an expert. In my opinion, the piece referenced by the OP presents misinformation and does humanity a great disservice by clouding the evidence with emotion, loose associations, hearsay, and conjecture. Not exactly a solid foundation to build your beliefs on! Especially when your actions that stem from those beliefs could have tremendous consequences for your children and grandchildren.
Yes, unfortunately there is sensationalism on both sides of the Global Warming debate. It can be very difficult to wade through all the rhetoric and get to the facts. However, I can tell you that getting research published is not easy. You have be dedicated. You have to do your absolute best, most OBJECTIVE work, submit it to experts for critical review, and if your work is shoddy you WILL be called on it! You will not be published and you will not be taken seriously. There are orders of magnitude more rigor involved in publishing research than posting your opinion-piece on your web page! So I ask you, where do YOU get your information?
The great thing about the Scientific Method is that it is self-correcting (although it can take some time for these corrections). The problem is that we may not have the luxury of time with respect to Global Warming. Sure, we can wait, and conduct more experiments, and take more measurements, refine our theories, and not jump to conclusions. But its quite possible that by the time we find out the truth, it may be too late. On the other hand, it could turn out that Global Warming is a natural and temporary event. But are you willing to make such a gamble? The consequences are too terrifying for me.
As an alternative we can assume that Global Warming IS caused by human activity and we can act. Right now! What is the worst that could happen by taking action now? We could develop alternative and cleaner forms of energy. We could develop more efficient and cleaner vehicles. We could eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. We could greatly reduce the risk of oil spills and other types of contamination. We could create new jobs. We could have cleaner air, water, and land and be more responsible stewards of our only home. And if it turns out that the mean global temperatures drop as we clean up our act then I can live with that! Will it be difficult? You bet it will. Will it require sacrifice? You bet it will. Is it the right thing to do?
Someone once said “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.” What we have done for the last 100 or so years has resulted in a polluted planet with the threat of possible devastating consequences. Should we keep on doing more of the same and hope for a different outcome? (That, by the way, is Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity!) Or should we, as the dominant species, grow up, take responsibility, and clean up our planet? For if its not Global Warming, then maybe it will be poisoned water, or polluted air, or contaminated land that does us in. Global Warming is only one potential outcome of our rampant disregard for our environment.
And what if, despite all our efforts to clean up the earth, global temperatures continue to rise? I would argue that humanity will be in a far better position to deal with that situation than we would be if we continue down our current path. Think about it.
As for being labeled an “Environmentalist---I thank you very much! I accept that label with immense pride. I AM an environmentalist. I have a deep and profound love and respect for planet earth and all her creatures. Nothing moves me more than being in the wilderness. Nothing reaffirms my belief in God more than being alive and able to witness the complexity and the beauty (and forgiveness) of our planet. And nothing causes me more distress than seeing humanity pollute its only home in the name of greed. Environmentalists don't want "control". They want people to act responsibly and with concern for their fellow man, all species, and all to come. The earth is the greatest gift. Treat it as such.
It is disappointing that GCC has been labeled global warming by the mainstream press, because of course now if we get a year with cooler temps it appears to give the lie to the concept when in fact it does not.
It's also disappointing that GCC is seen as the latest "cause" by those who view environmentalists as an alarmist, hand-wringing community that seeks to inflame people.
Perhaps most disappointing to me personally is the fact that there are too many people on both sides who pick a side because they like a fight. These people convince themselves it's the issues that drive them when it's really just a personal need to attack someone else. Meanwhile, whether GCC is human-caused or not, whether it's going to be severe enough to kill off our and other species or not, we need to be reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution not because of the latest fashionable crisis in the environmental community, but because these goals have always been responsible and worth achieving.
The earth is our house, and if we don't keep our house clean we will, as a species, catch ill and eventually die out.
The earth won't care, but I suspect we will.
(Even today there are news stories about holocaust deniers, and the Earth being flat. More and more people choose to spend their gift of life on fantasy worlds and manufactured realities)
BEAUTY @ REALITY ARE IN THE MIND @ EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
Kent in SD
If an engineer tells you that a bridge is unstable and you should not go onto it, you believe him. Why?
If a chemist tells you that you need to mix chemical A and B to get chemical C, you believe him. Why?
If a physicist tells you need to use some formula to calculate the trajectory of a baseball, you believe him. Why?
You trust these people because their statements are based on meticulously researched , hard won knowledge.
If the vast majority of the world's climatologists, from many, many years of meticulous research tell you that global warming is NOT a natural cycle, but is due to human activity, you DON'T believe them. WHY?
With such odds and so much at stake would it not make more sense to take preventive measures first and see if they were right later?
Guy
I am a scientist, and I have to express my frustration at people, who are not scientists themselves, or who do not understand the scientific process, yet feel they know more than what these people have researched meticulously. Science is a very rigorous process, and trust me, if there is a crack pot or somebody who has a wrong theory, they will be told by their peers.
Sure, there are individial scientists, engineers, doctors who make wrong statements, but you won't have thousands of scientists agree collectively, after very stringent data taking and analysis, that global warming is induced by humans. Don't you think that they actually have taken into account all the scenarios such as warming cycles, solar cycles etcc???? They are not that stupid!
Farther up in the thread I said this:
So, yes, I definitely believe preventive measures are in order.
Science is not (usually) about absolutes. Researchers gather data in the best ways they can and try to interpret it in a way that supports the observations. Their proposed theories and models are then subjected to intense scrutiny. Some are shown to be wrong. A few stand up. More and more researchers collect more and more data and propose new and better theories. Eventually the theories converge into a scenario that has a very high probability of being correct. Science self-corrects. Its a continuum. Its rarely (never?) absolute. The biggest problem is that these corrections take time. Sometimes decades or even centuries. I'm not sure we have that kind of time.
Climatic predictions are based on extremely complex models that have a multitude of variables. The models are refined continuously as new and better data come in. Many currently suggest that human activity is responsible for the rise in mean global temperatures. This is based on painstaking work by the smartest people on the planet. It is not clouded in emotion, religion, politics, beliefs, or wishful thinking. This information is based on hard work by very intelligent people and is currently the best that is out there. Take it seriously! This isn't the time to be believing in Punxsutawney Phil!
Personally, I think the current generation has a responsibility towards future generations. We should be doing everything we can to make the world a better and cleaner place for those who come after us. The Earth is very forgiving but eventually it will reach its limit and by then it will be too late for us. The Earth is not a "resource" to be "consumed"! It is our only home---we have nowhere else to go.
Since you quoted me at the start of your post, Phillip, I assume you're replying to me. And my answer to your question is: No, as I've already said farther up in this thread and again in my reply to Cristoph and Guy.
Yes, indeed you did state that previously!
Guy is correct that the scientific consensus over Anthropogenic Climate Change is approaching "spherical earth" numbers, see for example:
Here
I am a trained skeptic (ex-lawyer) and love to take the unpopular stand on issues, but common sense and years of studying radiative forcing and understanding the science led me to some rather inevitable conclusions. If you are in denial, either free your mind of idealogical preconceptions and political bias, and do some real homework on the issue (rather than swallowing every bit of nonsense that floats around the internet), or do as some of the above comments have suggested and accept that changes in our behavior would be a positive thing, regardless of whether anthropogenic GW is "real" or not.
As a not stupid person that is not a scientist, I would be interested in reviewing factual information rather than newspaper articles or statements of faith. Phil, as you are a PhD, I will hope you know where the appropriate scientific studies on this topic can be found. Please post the link or links so I can review the science.
A good place to start is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Here are other sources of information that are geared more for the lay public (search for “global warming” or “Climate Change”):
http://www.sciam.com/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/index.html
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://www.un.org/climatechange/
Here are some very technical sources (for the scientists---again do a search once you get to the site). These generally require a subscription and many university libraries carry a large number of these journals:
http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.nature.com/
http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/
http://www.agu.org/journals/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100405/
http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0477&ct=1
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home
And many others…..
Also……Many Universities have websites dedicated to Global Warming/Climate Change. Just Google “University Climate Change” and you will find a wealth of information direct from university researchers.
And if the Pirate Correlation mentioned by Ross has a correlation coefficient greater than 98%, I suggest this website:
http://www.yarr.org.uk/talk/
Edit: For some reason there is a limit to how many tags ([bold], [url], etc..) you can put in a post. Don't know why.
An updated analysis of observed stratospheric temperature variability and trends is presented on the basis of satellite, radiosonde, and lidar observations. Satellite data include measurements from the series of NOAA operational instruments, including the Microwave Sounding Unit covering 1979–2007 and the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) covering 1979–2005. Radiosonde results are compared for six different data sets, incorporating a variety of homogeneity adjustments to account for changes in instrumentation and observational practices. Temperature changes in the lower stratosphere show cooling of ∼0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979–2007, with some differences in detail among the different radiosonde and satellite data sets. Substantially larger cooling trends are observed in the Antarctic lower stratosphere during spring and summer, in association with development of the Antarctic ozone hole. Trends in the lower stratosphere derived from radiosonde data are also analyzed for a longer record (back to 1958); trends for the presatellite era (1958–1978) have a large range among the different homogenized data sets, implying large trend uncertainties. Trends in the middle and upper stratosphere have been derived from updated SSU data, taking into account changes in the SSU weighting functions due to observed atmospheric CO2 increases. The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km. Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995–2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements. Updated estimates of the solar cycle influence on stratospheric temperatures show a statistically significant signal in the tropics (∼30°N–S), with an amplitude (solar maximum minus solar minimum) of ∼0.5 K (lower stratosphere) to ∼1.0 K (upper stratosphere).
Philip, I am glad that as a scientist you are willing to let the nay-sayers speak their mind. Science is about finding truth and not silencing others you disagree with on political/social/religious/scientific matters. One hears about some scientists making comments to the AMS that anyone who disagrees should be tossed from the society. How does censorship help the credibility of a debate?
I wonder at times if some of the hard feelings towards the scientists comes from hearing them speak about climate matters and then, when they are off the stage, make very hard, sometimes very politically slanted comments. Where does politics fall in this effort and why does the scientist appear to be so strongly biased? "Joe public", recognizes the bias and, since they are used to seeing political wheels greased, starts to believe the correlation between politics and science is not about truth, but instead the funding of science and politics. Those scientists that survive in the field must have a bias that supports the political machine. Those that disagree and shouted down in debates and their publications/presentations are disallowed.
It could also be difficult for "Joe Public" to believe a climate forecast when the local 5 day forecast is often so wrong. The public would have to wonder why (what appears to them) the same numerical model can be so wrong in one week, but it is supposed to be right in 200 years. The public is not (often) told when/where/why the models are wrong and what assumptions go into the models. These assumptions may be based upon the best information available, but when information is hidden the solution comes into question.
There is the question of how one will not harm the local economy while helping the climate globally. For example, we can restrict our emissions to the nth degree, but if China, India and other countries don't follow, but instead increase emissions will it really matter? It is up to the political leaders to come to a global agreement on the issue and actually hold to the bargain. But there are issues with trust and honesty in reporting with all people that leaves folks skeptical about the outcome. Just look at the political environment in this country. How many people will trust their political representative (regardless of affiliation)? Having a high ranking state senator as a neighbor and having talked to him and other political big shots, they have said to me that there is a lot of lip service when out with the general public and personally motivated actions in private. How can I trust even my neighbor who represents me when I am told these things happen?
edit
And just one other comment. I am not trying to make light of cancer, but I just have to question the use of this example.
A while back I sat on the wrong side of the table with an oncologist and had been given some tough news. He explained the options and for forth and we made the decision(s) that had to be made. And at the end he said something that stuck with me. He said something like:
"As you ponder this situation you will start to think about why this happened. When you ask a patient, about 90% of them will know why the cancer occurred. If you ask the doctor, about 90% will have no explanation why. It is an interesting statistic, and no, I do not know why this has happened."
So while science believes they know why this is happening, does mankind really know enough to fully answer the question? I realize this has been already addressed with a "best educated guess" and "insurance policy" solution. But are we leaving room for the unknown?
/edit
Just some comments and not a statement on where I stand on this issue.
S
To get a PhD I had to pass a qualifying exam. One of the questions I was asked was to convince Joe Public why my research was necessary and why the public should pay for it. It was a VERY difficult, and humbling, thing to do--I constantly slipped into techno-speak and the prof would say "What? I don't understand. How does that help me?" And I would start again. And again....( I'm not sure I ever succeeded!--but they passed me anyway
As a researcher you will reach a point of extreme specialization and its very difficult to talk with people who don't have that same point of reference. Some scientists come across as smug or indifferent or condescending but I think its mostly because of a lack of good communication skills. Kinda ironic actually. Many scientists are extremely passionate (just as we are about photography) and once passion creeps in it sometimes becomes harder and harder to be tactful and have an open mind. Then there are the few who are just plain jerks. Despite Gary Larson's (The Far Side) best efforts at depicting scientists otherwise, scientists are human after all and have all the same shortcomings as anyone else. I think a part of the curriculum for any advanced degree should be courses and workshops in communication!
Its likewise difficult to explain that your 5-day forecast from the local weather caster (Stan--please jump in and correct me!!
And yes there is indeed a lot of pressure on scientists in terms of funding for their research. It is absolutely cut-throat. Some are very good at schmoozing with politicians and heads of funding agencies and getting some leverage in their direction. Most are not. Scientists probably spend more time writing proposals than actually conducting research. Most proposals are shot down. The pressure is tremendous because most researchers have to go out and find money to even pay their own (and their student's) salaries! That puts a different slant on things!
As far as what the rest of the world does.....that's more difficult topic for debate! As the saying goes, you can "Think Globally and Act Locally". Every little bit helps. Unfortunately our media is motivated by ratings and money---not what is sound science or reporting. Most people, even our politicians, take this reporting at face-value. Lets face it, who has the time to seek out facts? With so much misinformation and sensationalism out there and such a fast-paced society its very difficult to see though the fog and make any rational, intelligent, informed decisions. How do we counter this? Wish I knew. Maybe it has to start in our schools? I don't know.
I think we need a global paradigm shift towards helping all of humanity succeed and being more responsible to our planet. Those who are "in the know" or who develop new technologies or energy sources should share them worldwide instead of "cashing in" at the expense of Planet Earth and the whole of humanity. You can create a new technology, sell it to the highest bidder, and get filthy rich. And while that may be good for you it doesn't help your descendants, your species, or your planet. In my opinion, people need to get past the "me, now" paradigm and think about the future of humanity and behave accordingly. Its a "hard sell" for sure but what is the alternative?
Whew, my brain hurts. Break time!
Wow! I am surprised your fingers don't hurt as well.
Just a few comments. I will try to be concise.
1) I agree with the personality issues. Some times a PhD scientists have spent decades studying problems and feel they are right no matter what (when were they ever wrong in school?). It is an arguement of ego and not facts. Some times one has spent a decade working the problem the wrong way and it is difficult to admit an error of ways to some punk kid who is just starting out. And yes, some PhD folks are just plain jerks (I am not pointing fingers here!)
2) Publish or perish is the nature of the beast. A scientist does not want to loose a job as much as the next guy and if you can eliminate competition you do it. (See, it's not personal. It's business!) If one can schmooze and get a sugar daddy in the system, you do it. And then you set yourself up in the "ivory tower" and let the funding come rolling in. Sounds great.... But where is truth, honesty and integrity in this? It's the nature of the beast, however.
3) While it is a nice concept that people think of others before themselves, very few can practice it. Some might say it is the sinful nature of man, others might say it is the animal instinct. Whatever it is, I don't think we will see this happening any time soon. One used to hear about peace, love, the brotherhood of man and that we shouldn't trust anyone over the age of 30. Now those folks are getting over the age of 60 and the next generation is watching those 60 year olds at "Big Bank Co." taking home all of the chips and living the good life. Those "kids" in their 20's want that too and they are being taught by example.
4) Short range forecast models are actually very complex tools that also require the mighty super computers. Their curse is they have more details to go along with the shorter forecast time. So what all did that climate model omit that is in the short term forecast? What did they add? What else needs to be added? Very few people know the answer to these questions.
S
I will agree it is warming but I am not sure it will continue nor am I sure of all the causes or what the single cause may be. In the 1970's scientists and Big Al where touting a new ice age. Scientists new about CO2 gases then. What changed? Just looking for meaningful information.
Thanks
Ross
Let me blather and see if I can muddy up the water a little.
I am a little young to recall the 1970's, but wasn't it the "nuclear winter" theory that Sagan was promoting. "Tricky Dick" had his finger on the button and we were going to blow-up the world. Then those that survived the US-USSR conflict would find a world with a lot of bomb dust in the stratosphere. That dust would block the sunlight for years and it would get really cold on the surface until the dust settled out. (But Peter Sellers helped us learn to relax and love the bomb.)
I think scientists knew about CO2 back then and were monitoring its climb, but there was also that strange ozone drop over Antartica every October that was getting attention. Finally it was shown that Chloroflorocarbons from the deodorant cans were introducing a blocking mechanism in the stratospheric ozone production and it took a while for the block to be worked around. CFC's use was reduced and the ozone hole will be gone in another 100 to 200 years. With that mystery solved in the late 70's, and the political climate changing our attention was directed back to CO2.
Computer models were starting to get into fashion back in the late 70's as well. They were crude tools, but useful at testing theories. One of those areas was the warming effects of CO2. The problem is we don't fully understand the sources and sinks of carbon (and this is true even today). The computers are getting faster every year and the computer models more complex, but they still don't account for every possibility at this time. I like to point to the effects of aerosols on the climate change problem. Back in the late 70's/early 80's there would be forecasts of global warming of something like 10F +/- 6F (most of the uncertainty being related to aerosols). Now the understanding has increased and we see reports on the line of 2 to 3C warming with and uncertainty of 1.5 to 2C (again aerosols/pollution is the dominant source of error). (I am probably off a little with the numbers and no time period, but the point is that aerosols is the dominant source of uncertainty and it has not changed over the past 20 to 30 years).
I think you will find that few will dispute the data showing the temperature warming. What is happening to cause the warming is in question (urbanization, pollution, sensor changes, solar changes,etc). Besides fully understanding the carbon cycle there is questions to the effects of emissions and pollution transport/evolution on the global climate. Since the chemical reactions that take place in the pollution is not understood as well as the interaction of pollution with sunlight and clouds, it is difficult to be more certain about the results of a computer forecast. This is where research needs to take place - pollution and how it interacts with the weather and sunlight.
And then there is the most important change - [deleted word] funding. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers. Scientists have turned into political activists so that they can continue to work. This transition rewards them with funding and big prizes, but, alas, it brings their entire work into question. What is truth and what is political grand standing is unclear. It is hard to trust the results when they are seen with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. At times it appears that the scientist is repeating political rhetoric and dogma rather than speaking truth. One just doesn't know if their words are trustworthy given the company they are keeping. (e.g., So you say the world is warming. Is this really true or are you crying wolf to get the funding you so desperately need? Given the political figures at your side I can't figure out what is truth or fiction).
While the science it improving its overall understanding, the strange bed fellows that are needed is making the debate hard to understand. I can appreciate your uncertainty and questioning the results. It's hard enough keeping up with things when you have just a little understanding.
S
Al Gore in is early years after college was a proponent of the coming ice age theory. As I rememeber "nuclear winter" was not part of the theory. Now with Al Gore promoting global warming, to make millions off of carbon credits, the theory is immediately suspect to me.
And so, like the OP, I also add the . . .
Thanks for the comments of support and noting I am not trying to start a fight. Just tossing my ignorance and $.02 into the thread.
Ross,
Had to wiki Huey Long. Interesting person. And I would agree with your comment regarding Al Gore bringing doubt to the climate change field. What does a politician really know about the science if he did not devote his career to the field? Is he really after political/financial gain? I don't have answers.
S
First, as a scientist I am particularly intrigued by "And then there is the most important change - political funding."
Second, are you telling me that thousands of scientists, the vast majority of climatologists, are signing a global warming declaration because they are looking for funding or are having a political agenda? Come on!
Thanks
Ross
First of all, as I noted earlier I am speaking with ignorance so I can easily be way off base. I am not a climate change expert. And again, I am not saying that I am pro or against climate change. I am trying to present views or questions that I have heard expressed (playing devil's advocate?). I apologize if I have offended anyone by not trying to take sides.
I did not consider the US scientist being only a government scientist, but rather a university scientist. (Government agencies like NASA probably do get funding for climate change research as well.) Political funding was probably not the correct word. I probably should have said something like funds from nationally supported research agencies like the NSF). And if there is money to study climate change coming from those agencies then there is a funding distribution process that takes place. This would be the reviewed proposal and here is where the competition (peer review?) gets tough. Why couldn't there be a filtering of approved work at this step?
As for the vast majority of climatologists signing a letter stating global warming is real, I thought there was a news article recently on this somewhere. It was something like 95% of climatologists are pro climate change. Only 64% of meteorologists and less outside the field. And someone related to the climate change community pointed to these numbers and said that it proves that climatologists know best. After all, they are the trained experts. A cynic might say that it only shows that doubters have been filtered out of the climate field. Why else would trained meteorologists, a group that also has some training in climatology and quite capable of understanding the science, have a strong difference of opinion?
S
"The workshop and the papers in this volume show that the earth's climate is always changing, and that gradual changes, periodic variations, and sudden shifts are all characteristic of this natural propensity for change. The Climate Research Committee concludes that the climate fluctuations of the last few millennia were as varied and extensive as any of those observed over the last few decades, though modern climate seems to be intriguingly close to the warmest limits of our poorly documented record of natural variability over the past several thousand years (see Jones and Briffa's paper in Chapter 2). Modeling studies do suggest that climate is very sensitive to relatively small perturbations in key locations. For example, subtle changes in the air/ sea/ice interaction of the high-latitude North Atlantic may lead to abrupt changes in ocean circulation and Northern Hemisphere climate. If one of these disproportionate responses were triggered by an anthropogenic effect, climate could be altered more rapidly than the past record would lead us to expect.
The magnitude of the climate changes indicated by records of natural variability, and the rapidity with which they have taken place, suggest that society should expect significant climate change even if anthropogenic influence is minimized. We need to understand and be able to predict this change so that we can adapt to it or modify our contribution to it. Given our recent advances in documenting past climate change, monitoring modern climate processes, and improving process and coupled atmosphere-ocean models, the study of natural climate variability represents an area of great scientific opportunity—one that is important not only for guiding policy, but for understanding how our present biological and geochemical environment evolved and learning to predict how it may respond to natural variations or anthropogenic changes."
Natural Climate Variability On Decade-to-Century Time Scales
Climate Research Committee
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Research Council
I am, however, fully in favor of significantly reducing the burning of fossil fuels for this, and many, many other reasons. What has always bothered me about this debate, however, is the lack of respect for those with differing points of view. Saying "The science is settled" is just plain incorrect. Sensational threats (see GWB and the "War on Terror") intimidation, and name-calling does not advance our understanding of climate change. That goes for both sides of this debate. You are not a "communist" if you believe one thing nor are you a "Flat Earther" if you believe another.
As an environmentalist, I fear the reputation of the entire environmental movement now rests on the validity of this one theory. That bothers me too. If the planet does experience a 20-30 year cooling period, as many respected (albeit,in the minority) climatologists believe, the credibility of all real and known environmental issues can be too easily dismissed by those who do not value wild places and a clean, healthy environment.
This is one of my prime concerns as well. The environmentalist community often is dismissed as moving from cause to cause and trying to inflame public sentiment with drama rather than science. I don't agree with that assessment, but it's a pretty common one among people outside the community. The national debate on GCC has become far more strident than any other environmental issue I can recall in the last 25 years (which is as long as I've been involved in environmental issues). Maybe the debate over nuclear energy in the 70s was this big, but I wasn't paying much attention then.
Now that we have an administration and a balance of Congress that believes GCC is anthropogenic, I suspect there'll be less debate about GCC as a reality, and the debate will shift more toward which steps are most appropriate as we move forward.
My frequently stated position is that we must markedly decrease pollution for a host of reasons, only one of which is to reduce any impact we have on climate. If the current push to reduce pollutants comes from GCC, that works just fine for me.
Ross
Ross, Phillip is correct about the stratospheric temps not having a bearing on the temperature here on the ground, partly depends on how they defined the "stratosphere" (didnt read the article) but a cooler stratospheric could easily mean a warmer lower atmosphere! Phillip, you made a minor mistake in saying that our 5 day forecasts are run on desktops--in fact they are also run on the Crays, you are thinking of local or regional models that use the boundary conditions of the NAM or GFS etc.
Steven, there are a number of reasons why mets are less likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change: Many mets do not have advanced degrees, so their knowlege of physics and modeling is less than people who have gone through grad courses; their understanding is more limited to short term (weather) phenomena. Most mets have been burned many times by model-based forecasts that turned out to be wrong, so they tend to be more skeptical (Since my short term forecast sucked, how can they get a long term one right?). This again is based on a lack of understanding of climate and modeling. Personally, I think interseasonal or seasonal forecasts of temps are really shaky, but that doesnt make me any more skeptical of long-term climate changes based on greenhouse gas forcing. Finally, mets have a large number of individuals who have a military background (cause thats where a large number of met jobs are!). I suspect that folks in the military tend to be somewhat more conservative than others (correct me if im wrong) and unofrtunately, ones political bent is pretty decisive on this issue!
Interesting comments.
I would have thought that most met office folks are getting Masters degrees by now and have had some modeling experience. Of course, there is a lot more training that goes into a PhD in climatology and with it a lot better understanding of model building. And while the met office folks tend not to trust models due to being burned every now and then, could the opposite be said about climate scientists trusting their models too much? (Of course the methodologies by which the models are evaluated can be quite different at times). Also, it is interesting that you see a conservative bias with the military folks you encounter. I tend to see a liberal bias around my office. Why would being a liberal stop someone from wanting to serve their country? I would hope and trust that every citizen, while they might disagree on some political policies, would still care very deeply for this country and want to make it better for future generations. The way to improve the country could even include serving in the military (thank you to all of you who have served). And when it comes to pollution issues, of which greenhouse gases could be considered, why wouldn't a conservative want a cleaner environment? Of course, this was stated much more eloquently in earlier responses (e.g., Ross, Guy). These are rhetorical questions and not intended to be answered.
Greg's Quote
Mr Noll's request that posting be deleted, speaks volumes of how environmentalist want to control. Basically, you are entitled to your opinion as long as it agrees with mine. While some areas are warmer, others are cooler. This is the natural cycle of the planet, and has been going on since day one. There is no definite scientific proof that man is responsible for any change in CO2. People tend to look only at their life time and make assumptions, while ignoring the preceeding several billion years worth of data.
I can understand some debate about anthropogenic climate change...but really...this quote really sums up this whole thread for me...WOW!
But i hear you, it's hard to believe that some people actually make that argument fervently. Of course, we all have microchips implanted in our brains by the government, so they can control our thoughts and keep us from seeing the wisdom of these alternative views...
Just finding it interesting that, despite there being no scientific proof of God, you still believe in him.
I'd argue that there's more scientific proof supporting global warming than there is supporting the existence of a God. With all due respect, how do you reconcile the double standard?
You guys can worry you little hearts to death over this whole (man made ) global warming thing all you want . Its just another agenda by the mother earth group . You know the one's , they say it's bad to have ( any )children or bad to drive a car . If it makes you guy feel so high and mighty believing this junk science good fro ya . Just don't expect me/us to fall for your feel good bull . Some of you just love telling us how many kids we should have , the car we should drive . the way my house should be built , how i do my job , if i should own a gun or hunt and try to control just about everything i do . You/me are just a speck on this big earth and God will decide when we/us are done here , not your evil so called man made global warming . Worry all you want if it make you feel better !!
Conflating multiple issues while trying to make a point about a specific one is not a good way to win an argument. Gun ownership has nothing to do with global warming, other than it tends to get lumped together as some sort of anti-gun/pro-earth agenda. (And this by people on both sides of each argument.) Not having clear goals and positions on particular points being discussed is a sure fire way to never agree on anything, and never get anything accomplished.
As someone who isn't certain to what extent man is harming the environment, I'd love to see some non-junk science on both sides. But Rob, all you've shown is the initial posting, which is pretty obviously junkier science than anything brought forth by others in this thread.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
Edited: Seems the 'problem' above has been cleared up. Thanks.
Cheers
Carl
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/CBC_Global_Warming_Doomsday_Called_Off_mp4.aspx
RobK