Climate change studies consistently forget the larger system in which weather operates, ie, the solar system and our galaxy. When will climate doomers address the warming of Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?
There are then the issues of rising earthquakes and volcano counts throughout the last century, which indicates a more active geology. Which climate model predicts those changes and their effects on Gaia?
And what about the decreasing intensity of our magnetospere? Which model predicts that, or takes into account the global effect a waning magnetic field has on our weather?
I just finished an interesting article on a scientist's work on cosmic rays influence on our weather, and while I'd not think of that before, the link between CR's and cloud cover looks fairly strong, at least until more science is done on this topic.
As an aside, the article points out that we don't understand the mechanics of clouds. We should not forget that we cannot explain a thundercloud's lighting either.
All in all, we are vastly ignorant about the Earth system.
Don't take this for laisser-faire. There are many things worth worrying about, like the soot produced by coal or acid rain, clear cut deforestation or petrochemicals and pesticides moving in the food chain.
But global warming's science is dubious. And for those claiming otherwise, always consider the motive of money in screaming about GW.
Hello Dave. I've not advocated pollution or laisser-faire in regards to our atmosphere.
If there is one advantage to the GW scare, it is that more people will look into solar, wind, geothermal, thorium and electrification as viable, instead of impractical pipe dreams.
Coming back to my point, there is a similarity in pointing the flawed understanding of climatology and the flaws of our irresponsible behavior. Both scientists acting with certainty and polluters acting innocent are reprehensible and often do so when large amounts of money are involved.
Coming back to my point, there is a similarity in pointing the flawed understanding of climatology and the flaws of our irresponsible behavior. Both scientists acting with certainty and polluters acting innocent are reprehensible and often do so when large amounts of money are involved.
The "large amount of money" flows primarily to the polluters and destroyers of the environment. How else to explain how this world has degenerated into such a mess.
The scientists are attacked because they are seeking to limit industry's freedom to pollute.
Coming back to my point, there is a similarity in pointing the flawed understanding of climatology and the flaws of our irresponsible behavior.
Yesterday night Klaus Toepfer, former UNEP chairman, said in german TV that the last IPCC report found a "90 per cent probability" that man is changing the climate.
"And there are still many people hoping for those other 10 per cent", he said. "Now imagine you are boarding an airplane, and the pilot tells you that with a 90 per cent probability the plane will crash on that flight. Do you expect anybody to stay in that plane?"
'Climate change' is a much better term, and I think that most honest scientific discussion hinges on how the climate is changing - generally, 'gloabl warming' is bandied about by those with an agenda.
But in what sense is the science dubious? As a predictive model of future climate in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? etc. If you mean that the future is unknown, and that climate is an incredibly complex system, with a myriad of external influences, and a number of unknown parameters, well, no argument there.
If you mean that human caused geological scale emissions of CO2 over several centuries due to the burning of fossil fuels is somehow in the realm of 'dubious science,' well, good luck, as we all are participants in a planetary scale climate experiment, regardless of how dubious the science is in the eyes of some of those taking part.
As a matter of fact, essentially as far into the future as can be imagined, human beings will be able to seriously advance the still fairly primitive state of their understanding of Earth's climate, as they will have one major variable (atmospheric CO2) which was not introduced by natural means - that is, by reversing several hundred million years of carbon removal, humans will be able to conclusively experience what it means to reintroduce it to their one and only planetary habitat.
In a few centuries, the science will be anything but dubious.
The science of how methane is being reintroduced to the atmosphere is a brand new area, where the science is exciting, not 'dubious.'
Another exciting scientific area involves the history of the discovery of the ozone hole - for example, at this link, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct99_1.htm , 'NASA instruments have been measuring Antarctic ozone levels since the early 1970s. Since the discovery of the ozone "hole" in 1985, TOMS has been a key instrument for monitoring ozone levels over the Earth.' What that little text misses is found at this link - http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html -
'A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC's and that shock came in a 1985 field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin. Published in _Nature_, May 1985, the study summarized data that had been collected by the British Antartic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. The authors had been somewhat hesitant about publishing because Nimbus-7 satellite data had shown no such drop during the Antarctic spring. But NASA soon discovered that the spring-time ''ozone hole'' had been covered up by a computer-program desiged to discard sudden, large drops in ozone concentrations as ''errors''. The Nimbus-7 data was rerun without the filter-program and evidence of the Ozone-hole was seen as far back as 1976.'
See, in 1985, the ozone hole was dubious science, without any satellite data backing it up, and the sceptics (I personally knew one when working at a PR department - pleasant man, and very well paid for his scientific credentials) had a field day showing just how dubious the science of ozone depletion was.
Strangely, these days, you don't hear too much about the man-made destruction of the Antartic's ozone layer, the international agreements which seem to have at least halted the process, and the fact that the sceptics tended to be even more wedded to their economic well being than that of their fellow man, while proudly sprouting their platitudes about science while contributing nothing in terms of actual research, especially as how ludicrous their well founded scepticism was revealed to be, though this was long after their checks had cleared the bank.
Climate change will be a serious issue with immense complexity, and many people will simplify it for their own ends, no debate there. But the history of scientific inquiry tends to be marred by massive economic interests hindering such inquiry at any turn which may threaten their profits or business model.
Instead of an edit, a second post concerning that second NASA link.
This link is quite confusing, which may because the last edit was May 30, 2001. Though they present the paragraph I noted as fact, it is then contradicted thusly -
'It is important to note that the description of the discovery of the ozone hole presented above is not accurate. Dr Richard D. McPeters, Principal Investigator, Earth Probe TOMS at Goddard Space Flight Center explains "Ozone is derived on a FOV-FOV basis and there has never been a filter applied as described. The explanation I usually see is that we "threw out" the low values. This is not correct either. Our software had flags for ozone that was lower than 180 DU, a value lower than had ever been reliably reported prior to 1983. In 1984, before publication of the Farman paper, we noticed a sudden increase in low value from October of 1983. We had decided that the values were real and submitted a paper to the conference the following summer when Joe's paper came out, showing the same thing. As the first one in print, he gets full credit for discovery of the ozone hole. It makes a great story to talk about how NASA "missed" the ozone hole, but it isin't quite true."
This is a very strange addendum - especially the 'isin't' mistake, and how it flatly contradicts what was not attributed as a story, and then attempts to show that the story is somehow wrong, while at the same confirming the fact that data was ignored until 1984. Further, this disclaimer is written in such a way as to discredit all the information above it - for example, the fact that 'In 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light.' would seem to be part of the 'not accurate' discovery of the ozone hole.
Strange - this all has a certain memory hole feel to it, actually.
Got it - Google connects a few dots - the author of the article is Brien Sparling, who also seems involved with The Environmental Literacy Council, which according to this link at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Literacy_Counci... has the sort of funding you would expect of conservative/corporate America.
Wow - 2001 - it seems as at least a few Americans were far sighted, and very involved in helping the youth of America protect themselves against any of that science based reality clap-trap, unless it is 'good' science. Yes, things are not merely ignored, they get smothered when no one is looking.
Let us agree to climate change then, which is a term more accurate reflection of our reality.
The science is dubious in the sense, as you pointed out, that there are many hidden variables and the available computing power dedicated to the task of understanding climate is still very low. The science is dubious in the sense that it cannot make predictions when new facts are being uncovered about the workings of the climate. To say otherwise undermines the validity of the model's first answer.
Climate change will be a serious issue with immense complexity, and many people will simplify it for their own ends, no debate there. But the history of scientific inquiry tends to be marred by massive economic interests hindering such inquiry at any turn which may threaten their profits or business model.
What about when the business model is making science?
As for the ozone hole, well, we haven't been observing that area for all that long. I was just reading about Mt Erebus, a volcano continously spewing chlorine gas into the Antartic stratosphere. Is it any wonder that this area would show a thinning ozone, especially at a time when the Sun's UV rays, which would replenish the ozone, fades from view? Especially in a water-poor zone, water which would otherwise mitigate the effect of volcanic chlorine?
As to why we don't hear from PR people, well, the Montreal Protocol went into effect, the battle is lost, so why keep paying?
It doesn't matter. Do you buy insurance, for anything? Even thought the proposition that your house will burn down is (to say the least) "dubious", you buy insurance regardless, right? It doesn't require 100% ironclad knowledge that your house will burn down before you buy fire insurance, at least for most people it doesn't.
Regardless of the state of the art, the only thing that must be proven is that it IS PLAUSIBLE that human CO2 emissions will cause a very serious and long lasting problem. This hurdle was passed many years ago, and it has been continuously upgraded from plausible to likely to just about certain since then. Given the availability of substitutes (it is 100% idiocy that we burn coal, killing millions of people a year worldwide for electricity, as an example), those substitutes should be utilized as soon as possible. In the case of coal we'd actually save money, medical bills aren't cheap, they're more than enough to cover the differential between coal and most other power sources. Once we get rid of all the things that not only cause climate change, but are also actually more expensive and nasty than the alternatives, then maybe we can even talk about whether or not spending more resources on energy is worth it, or just roll the dice and take what we've got. We haven't even come close to reaching that point yet, and we likely never will.
The future will almost certainly see us using effectively all the world's oil in the next decade or two, and gas will be close behind. They will be exhausted long before the economists realize that they are not physicists, so that problem will "take care of itself", in the sense that we're probably already locked in for 100% of the bad effects that might come from this. The only carbon source of significance that isn't all but guaranteed to end up in the atmosphere in the next 100 years is coal, if we steer clear of that one, we're probably at least in much better shape. This is just about the only choice we have to make at this point anyway, and it's a no-brainer. It costs us more to burn coal than most of the alternatives (due primarily to medical bills resulting from poisoned water, mercury in fish, emphysema, etc...), and that's without even considering climate change.
Of course, digging up what untouched wilderness we have left for a few more barrels of oil doesn't help anybody. It won't be enough to change that fact that in 50 years cars had better be electrical, and it certainly won't make climate change any less bad, so why do it at all?
'What about when the business model is making science?'
This seems quite strange as a perspective - as if there is some sort of business associated with observing data in the physical world around us, formulating a hypothesis/theory which can be refuted, then attempting to gather additional data to either confirm or refute the original hypothesis/theory. Obviously, as a human endeavor, it shares human flaws, including vested interests and inertia (comets as a major, if not the main, source of water on Earth is my favorite example of a current proven paradigm which will take a generation to be accepted, much like plate tectonics took that long for acceptance) and all the participants do agree on a set of rules, which may be pithily summed in the observation that while you can dispute theories, you can't dispute facts. And science can be done by anyone - whether a monk in his garden, or an alchemist who just happens to make a few pertinent observations about prisms, for example.
As for the science, the suggestion of visiting somewhere like realclimate.org is a very good one - there are a number of effects of vulcanism on climate, for example, and that is a fairly good forum to discuss such matters, though a rigorous one.
Without trying to cast any aspersions, there is something strange in your posting style, which seems to attribute motives to people without actually knowing the individuals at all. In the case of climate change, many more people are convinced of it these days, because they simply notice the world around them, which is not the same as a scientific explanation. And those who often opposed seem to have a direct interest in continuing their activities, regardless of scientific evidence - as witnessed by the company that started this thread.
It is quite reasonable to keep pointing out facts in a scientific discussion when discussing an explanatory framework, but to imply that the discussion somehow trumps the facts is simply not correct.
So you've just been reading up on Mt. Erebus and now you KNOW that it is the major source of the stratospheric ozone that helps create the annual ozone hole(s)?
Sorry. Scientists have known for decades that volcanoes spew chlorine, in the form of HCl, into the troposphere. As a result, chlorine from Mt. Erebus was one of the first suspects for causing the ozone hole after the hole was initially reported. However, scientists quickly discovered that very little HCl from volcanoes makes it up into the stratosphere because HCl combines very easily and very rapidly with water vapor and condenses out of the troposphere in rainfall. This NASA article discussing volcanic chlorine sources as a cause of the ozone hole is just one of many sources on this subject.
Even though "typcical" non-explosive volcanic emissions were soon ruled out as significant stratospheric chlorine sources, there was still some concern that major eruptions such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, the largest volcano eruption since 1912, with their columns of smoke reaching 20 or more kilometers up into the sky, might be major, albeit irregular, sources.
Extensive direct measurements of HCl from Mt. Pinatubo in the stratosphere has lead researchers to determine that it contributed less than .04 million tons of HCl to the stratosphere. For comparison, about 1 million tons of human produced CFCs and related compounds were being added to the stratosphere each year at the time th ozone hole was first reported.
The Mt. Saint Helen's and El Chichon eruption of the 1980's also added very small amounts of HCl to the stratosphere, as small or smaller than Mt. Pinatubo. Research very strongly suggests that even mega-eruptions, such as Krakatoa in the early 1800's, are usually not a major source of stratospheric HCl. Those eruptions produce as much as 1000 times more water vapor than HCl. As the eruption plume rises, the water vapor condenses into liquid. Given the very high affinity of HCl for water, the liquid water quickly washes almost all the HCl from the plume. For a much more detailed discussion and explanation, with extensive scientific references, see this.
Sorry to butt in here - I never intended to post on this site (for personal reasons I haven't posted anywhere for years). However, since I have found the level of interaction on this forum to be a significant cut above that of others I have seen, I would like to make an observation. In this thread there is something I have noticed occur from time to time: intolerance of ideas that are not considered mainstream to this site. While the flames at Paradox have been mild, the tenor is, I think, one that can cause lurkers such as I am, and posters of variant ideas, to ultimately flee the company of those here.
Let me begin by quoting from two comments on this post begun by Paradox.
Sunspot wrote:
Paradox - everything you list is pseudoscience. I suggest spending a little more time reading about real science written by real scientists.
Second, by Expat:
As a matter of fact, essentially as far into the future as can be imagined, human beings will be able to seriously advance the still fairly primitive state of their understanding of Earth's climate, as they will have one major variable (atmospheric CO2) which was not introduced by natural means - that is, by reversing several hundred million years of carbon removal, humans will be able to conclusively experience what it means to reintroduce it to their one and only planetary habitat.
Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory.
Concerning the first point: I am a scientist, I have a higher degree in applied science, I have been employed in applied science most of my working life. I am now semi-retired. I can assure everyone who is reading this that you will not learn 'truth' by reading works written by 'real scientists'. The only thing you will learn is the scientist's opinions about the facts they have. It can be as grossly biased as that of any pseudo-scientist (such as Velikovsky).
Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge.
Concerning the second point: I am a total political sceptic. If the pollys are beating very heavily on one drum, look around, someone or something is being hidden from you. In the case of GW I believe that something is PO as personified in Iraq/Iran.
My most serious point is that concerning the comment by Expat. Without meaning anything personal against Expat, I feel the belief Expat expresses here is an almost universal falsehood and is one of the most egregious errors that we humans are making based on a false premise that has been espoused by environmentalists and greenies for decades.
The idea that humans are not part of nature probably began when religions first decided that we are a special creation, apart from nature, and ruling over it. I know that many here probably feel this is true, if so, you will probably concur with Expat that what we humans do is unnatural. I do not agree.
If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms.
Environmentalists (whether scientists or laypersons) tell us it is unnatural for us to mine and exploit this fossil material and therefore wrong to do this. Why is it being stated that this recycling is wrong? After all, all that can happen is the planet is returned to the equally natural environment it experienced for hundreds of millions of years while higher life forms were evolving.
My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities.
nice little attempt at promoting 'double think' while throwing fud at the scientific process. the reason why climate change is accepted is that it has been tested by many people many different times.
they all basically came to the same conclusion. we are changing the climate, and we have been since the beginning of agriculture.
Never heard of a 'fud' but I guess it must be like dung?
However, I believe precisely the opposite of what you say. I wish more peple understood science and what scientists actually do. The scientific process is one of mankind's truely great achievements. And it usually works very well. Unfortunately, few lay people understand that theoretical science is rarely about discovering truth, it is about developing theories that can successfully avoid being falsified. A round-a-bout, but very effective, way of eliminating poorly reasoned assumptions.
Hence my warning, the non-scientist needs to realise that a quorum of scientists believing the same thing does not make it so, it just means that their theory is probably the last standing current theory on the subject. That does not make the current theory ultimate truth or that a new and better theory won't appear tomorrow. The simplest example being Newton/Einstein. Both theories of motion are right to a point, but then each breaks down. One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.
Science is good, I'm a lover of science and scientific method. But it should not interfere with intelligent thinking about alternatives - which is, after all, what science is all about.
'One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.'
Newton has not been 'supplanted' - Newtonian physics remain a cornerstone of various disciplines involving motion on this planet. What has happened is that Newtonian physics is seen as being applicable to a certain range of reality - after all relativity effects are easily ignored in automobile engineering.
Quite correct. Isaac's concepts are immensely useful, but they are not absolutes. Similarly, climate change theories are still little more than an explanation of an observed state of change in the planet's operation. To believe absolutely that we are all doomed because the climate is changing is not warranted by any observable data. The exact opposite could equally hold true.
It is a well established technique that is routinely used with great success by those who wish to manipulte the mob.
We all seem to agree that the "science" of climate change is a young one and full of uncertainties. However, given the "gravity" of the potential danger posed by methane burps and runaway warming, shouldn't we be giving this a lot more serious consideration than that of merely mocking those who cry wolf?
Remember, at the end of the tale, the wolf did come.
I'm with you Ian. I am not a 'practicing scientist' but spent an undergraduate career in the sciences and have had one foot in the academic sphere most of my life (another foot in the blue-collar world, and my third foot in the technical world :>).
I generally enjoy expat's posts and agree with much of what he/she says, but I take issue with the old 'canard' of "you can't argue with facts." It always depends, as a good scientist knows, whose version of the facts you are dealing with.
My main beef with many in the scientific world, or, even worse, scientist wannabes, is the lack of understanding of the epistemology of science. One of the best courses I ever took was a history of science. Great for the perspective of how the 'truth' changes depending not only on the data we collect but the general way thinking proceeding at a particular time in history.
Better leave it at that before rambling into a volume or two.
Not to get all ontological here, but if you wish to insist that there is something to discuss about a measurable fact like current CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, a concentration represented independently using similar instrumentation on many points of the globe, then we aren't really talking about science. And yes, a lot of people seem to think science is static, and that what they learned in school is somehow anchored - far from it.
In this sense, whether you wish to call it a fact, a data point, or a measurement, the essential element is that this bit of observed information remains independent of the observer - and no, now is not the time to jump into quantum physics, or Pirsig's 'quality' or whatever else strikes our fancy. But the albedo of the Artic's sea ice is higher than its water, and that fact remains pretty hard to dispute, even as we dispute the various definitions of sea ice and albedo. The changing ratio of reflection and absorption of solar radiation in the Artic will be completely unaffected by this discussion, however - which is what I mean by 'fact.'
Does this mean we are doomed? I don't know about anyone else here, but I am utterly and completely certain that everyone I know, including myself, will die. That to me is a fact, which many, many people seem to have a hard time with. Of course the climate changes, of course every civilization ends, of course things change. That is the beginning of the discussion, not its end, as we are not dead yet.
In this sense, whether you wish to call it a fact, a data point, or a measurement, the essential element is that this bit of observed information remains independent of the observer -
I disagree that the 'bit of observed information' remains independent of the observer. This is exactly what I mean when pointing out the lack of understanding of an epistemology of science. Putting it in another way that makes it more obvious, "No observations are independent of the observer."
I don't wish to get into a long discussion on this, but if you pick up a good book on history of science or, better yet, read an old book on science, you may be surprised at how many 'facts' have changed over time.
The bottom line is that the word 'fact' conveys a level of absoluteness of knowledge that IMO does not actually exist. And, no, this is not solipsism or a denial that we cannot know anything. It is just a reminder of the limits of our ability to know.
I used to buy/sell books as the bread and butter of my business. I once came upon a large number of the Signet Science Library collection, a collection of small paperbacks with volumes on scientists, and on scientific ideas, spanning the late 1940s up into the early 1950s.
These were popular books. People bought them and bought them for their kids. People and their kids read them.
They were great reading. I used to wake up at 8AM and spend an hour in bed reading one, before starting my day. They're great stuff - also hard to find these days.
One thing that shocked me like a slap in the face though: The "new" science we're getting served up in magazines like Discover and Scientific American, etc., is in these books.
How do I get this across? The average Amurrikan thinks "all these new things" are being come up with, but what they're seeing/hearing is old stuff that's 50 or more years known, with a silver lining of media glitz.
The new stuff isn't happening in the US anyway, it's happening in Japan and Europe and India and even odd places like pockets of the ex-USSR.
Once we've Olduvai'd a bit down further, it won't matter anyway, old tech will be new news to most.
If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong?
If your definition of "natural" includes burning oil & coal and polluting the atmosphere ... well, you might as well define "dropping nuclear bombs on cities" as natural, too.
You ask: How can it be wrong?
Simply: These behaviors could drive Homo sapiens to extinction.
And, yes, the extinction of the Homo sapiens is a perfectly natural act. Perfectly acceptable, too, in my view.
It might be useful to think about this "nature", "not nature" bit as being more about "biosphere", "not biosphere". The higher animals, and the plants that support us, have evolved in a world where all that carbon was hidden away. So if out interest is really in protecting the biosphere that we need to continue living then calling coal mining "unnatural" seems OK to me.
You could say the same about creating thousands of tons on nuclear waste.
Well, the comment about 'natural means' ties into the fact that human activities have managed to release geological scale amounts of CO2 in a couple of centuries that had been accumulated over hundreds of millions of years - generally speaking, oil wells and coal mines aren't what most people consider 'natural processes.'
And this brings up the question of something tricky - call it intent, call it self-awareness, call it intelligence. We have made choices (being a more or less firm believer in both free will and in responsibility for one's actions), and these choices are not in the same category as natural law.
A debatable point, but when the next city gets nuked, please don't tell me it exactly the same thing as an asteroid hitting a planetary surface. I find the difference quite, quite plain, even if tritium fusion is a 'natural process.'
I find it amusing that someone seriously writes about thinking away from the mainstream as a measure of objective reality - after all, 20 years ago, belief in 'global warming' (which means nothing to me - I believe in climate change, and think that human actions are only a part of it) was the belief which contradicted what was taught by respected scientists, religious dogma, and the media.
It must be interesting to live in a worldview that is constantly changing based on how many people accept it. This is one of the appeals of peak oil as a hobby - whether accepted or not, the amount of oil coming out of the pipeline is the only measure. Reality - coming soon to a society near you.
Ian down under - "Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory."
Interesting attempt to both patronise and confuse the AGW argument. So you are a scientist so answer this how does 98% of scientists accepting the theory or polititians promoting the theory change the facts to make your opinion change? The scientists that accept AGW theory do so because the theory fits with observed facts. As a self proclaimed scientist are you proposing the facts change because scientists accept a theory? No new research has been published in peer reviewed literature that contradicts AGW theory enough to cause a scientists such as yourself to disbelieve. So you would need to list the facts that have changed.
"Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge."
Absolutely thats why there is such a thing as peer review. It may be flawed however it does catch most of this. You saying this is like someone saying "some of my best friends are black or gay" as a preface to claims that they are not racist or homophobic. You suggesting that you as a scientist should distrust other scientists but believe you is almost the same thing.
"If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms."
Absolute and complete rubbish. How can you possibly compare the industrial mining of billions of tons of carbon compounds from where the Earth has safely sequestered them with animals in the cycle of life or a random event like a meteor. This is not even close to scientific and seriously casts doubts on your credentials. The NATURAL carbon cycle of the Earth has consigned this carbon to a place where it is out of the cycle. Us unnaturally digging it up is totally outside the natural cycle.
"My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities."
Absolutely correct. However by your definition as a scientist you are telling us to look beyond what you are saying. So we can't trust scientists such as yourself so who can we trust? Corporations???? You might be spoon fed through the media however you have picked the wrong crowd to try and preach this load of BS.
Anytime you want to debate the facts of AGW try me however how about you stop with the patronising BS.
Hi Ender,
Thank you for commenting on my post. It is this type of reply I am most keen to hear. As I stated, 'I was a happy believer in GW' - what I now see was a very dangerous position. Belief, instead of knowledge is a certain way to error. When I read that 98% of scientists accept GW the absurd concept entered my head that this means that only 2% of scientists must be climatologists. Thus began my lateral thinking on the subject.
The scientists that accept AGW theory do so because the theory fits with observed facts. As a self proclaimed scientist are you proposing the facts change because scientists accept a theory?
This is not my contention at all. I am totally happy that scientists have measured CO2 levels, that they have drilled ice cores, that they have peer reviewed each other's work. That is all science, that is inarguable. What is not science is the creation of models looking out five or seven decades through the most complex system we know of - the biosphere - and arriving at conclusions that tell us we are doomed to cyclones, droughts, drowned islands and all the other fears that are being promoted. This is not science, this is speculation based on a necessarily limited data input about a dynamic, complex and poorly understood system.
Climate Change is happening, it may have serious consequences, it may equally have very positive changes that I have not seen addressed: CO2 is food, plant growth in many systems may be accelerated, phytoplankton, zooplankton, krill, whales, fishing may all be positively effected. I've seen nothing of the potential positives of the increase in CO2. We know during the earlier periods of Earth's existence, when coal and oil were being formed, that while all this CO2 was being converted into biomass the planet flourished and evolution rampaged along. Why now is this beneficent gas suddenly a poison?
Absolute and complete rubbish. How can you possibly compare the industrial mining of billions of tons of carbon compounds from where the Earth has safely sequestered them with animals in the cycle of life or a random event like a meteor. This is not even close to scientific and seriously casts doubts on your credentials. The NATURAL carbon cycle of the Earth has consigned this carbon to a place where it is out of the cycle. Us unnaturally digging it up is totally outside the natural cycle.
The only object that can be outside the natural cycle is a divine presence. Granted, if there is a God that created the Earth and placed the fossil fuels underground to (well I can't think why she would have done that)…then okay it's outside the natural cycle. However, there is no mechanism in the natural carbon cycle that could have placed the carbon where it is, I'm sure it was a natural rather than supernatural phenomenon, perhaps meteor strike? But it was not the carbon cycle. All the biomass in the fossil fuels would be still being recycled if the carbon cycle had been allowed to function freely.
However by your definition as a scientist you are telling us to look beyond what you are saying. So we can't trust scientists such as yourself so who can we trust? Corporations???? You might be spoon fed through the media however you have picked the wrong crowd to try and preach this load of BS.
I worked for 25 years for the world's biggest mining company. I witnessed first-hand the devastation that this company has created in PNG. I was horrified to see how little that massive corporation cared about the indigenous population or the flora and fauna of that beautiful country. I saw a pristine river turned into a yellow cess-pond running for hundreds of kilometers through virgin forests. I'm not spoon-fed by the media. I've been at the coal-face in person. And yes, it was a part of the natural state - if we accept that humans are natural and we are guided by our natural insitincts for survival and that we are not divinely created - that doesn't make it desirable.
I'm not preaching, I am voicing an opinion that we are not looking properly at the whole GW debate and emotions, politics and pre-conceived ideas are clouding the debate - one of the biggest being that whatever humans do is somehow 'unnatural'. If you think this is patronising to the thinkers on this forum, that's fine, I don't believe that controversial questions and concepts are patronising - quite the opposite.
Climate Change is happening, it may have serious consequences, it may equally have very positive changes that I have not seen addressed:
Very unlikely. First humanity has built it's infrastructure and even culture around the climate "as is". ANY changes (and the period of chaos as changes appear) will be negative. Each spring farmers must decide whether to plant wheat, corn, soybeans or even rice in his fields. Uncertainity over which climate to plant for is VERY negative ! (And if wheat growing areas become corn growing; what to do with all the wheat threshers ?)
Stable is good; change is bad.
And one specific I am aware of. 98% of the native trees of Iceland are one species; Icelandic birch. And unheated greenhouse controlled experiments have shown that higher levels of CO2 "confuse" the Icelandic birch in preparing for winter hardening; resulting in much more severe frost damage some years. As a consequence, the Icelandic Forest Service is importing exotics and trying to develop some minimal adaptation to the various Icleandic climates.
Best hopes,
Alan
PS: I did not read closely, but did you claim to be a scientist ?
While you certainly have the right to debate the issue, I would suggest that you go over to realclimate.org to do so. You will find that there are many qualified climate scientists there that can fully engage you on the issues and adequately address each of your points. In fact, I believed they have already addressed the cosmic ray theory and found it fully inaeqaute. I think you will also find that the climate scientists take into account the effects of volcanoes and earthquake. In fact, I am surprised you brought up volcanoes, because, if anything, they tend to cause cooling, not warming. So despite what you call the "more active geology", we have warming. I think you will also find some answers regarding the alleged warming of Mars, etc.
Climate change is the most throughly researched phenomenon in the history of science and the most thorougly peer reviewed. Yes, we don't know everything, but our knowledge of this phenomenon is vastly superior to what is was decades ago. I think intellectual honesty requires that you engage the real experts and not the random individual on this cite who may know a bit about climate science, but not be an expert. I think you will find that we are less ignorant of how the climate works that you seem to think.
As for your claim that money is driving GW research, that is absurd. If the motivation was money, climate scientists would express a greater degree of skepticism, not certainty. If one is certain about a phenomenon, this is hardly an argument for getting more funding. If one expresses skepticism, however, that is an argument for more money for more research to iron out the uncertainties.
So, go to realclimate.org and give it your best short, that is your claim that the science is dubious. And the n try to back up that claim. I think you will find that your assertions are dubious and you will not be able to adequately defend your positions. If you think the scientists have not considered your objections, you are sadly ignorant of the state of the science.
And btw, have your hear of global dimming? The irony is that if we had not made the progress we have made regarding pollutant emissions, the world would be even warmer than it is.
Shall we rename this site, The Oil Doom?
Let me be clear first. The Earth is warming. But.
Climate change studies consistently forget the larger system in which weather operates, ie, the solar system and our galaxy. When will climate doomers address the warming of Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?
There are then the issues of rising earthquakes and volcano counts throughout the last century, which indicates a more active geology. Which climate model predicts those changes and their effects on Gaia?
And what about the decreasing intensity of our magnetospere? Which model predicts that, or takes into account the global effect a waning magnetic field has on our weather?
I just finished an interesting article on a scientist's work on cosmic rays influence on our weather, and while I'd not think of that before, the link between CR's and cloud cover looks fairly strong, at least until more science is done on this topic.
As an aside, the article points out that we don't understand the mechanics of clouds. We should not forget that we cannot explain a thundercloud's lighting either.
All in all, we are vastly ignorant about the Earth system.
Don't take this for laisser-faire. There are many things worth worrying about, like the soot produced by coal or acid rain, clear cut deforestation or petrochemicals and pesticides moving in the food chain.
But global warming's science is dubious. And for those claiming otherwise, always consider the motive of money in screaming about GW.
Hello paradox,
Shall we continue to pollute the atmosphere in the hope that our ignorance doesn't kill us all?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Dave. I've not advocated pollution or laisser-faire in regards to our atmosphere.
If there is one advantage to the GW scare, it is that more people will look into solar, wind, geothermal, thorium and electrification as viable, instead of impractical pipe dreams.
Coming back to my point, there is a similarity in pointing the flawed understanding of climatology and the flaws of our irresponsible behavior. Both scientists acting with certainty and polluters acting innocent are reprehensible and often do so when large amounts of money are involved.
Hello paradox,
The "large amount of money" flows primarily to the polluters and destroyers of the environment. How else to explain how this world has degenerated into such a mess.
The scientists are attacked because they are seeking to limit industry's freedom to pollute.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Paradox - everything you list is pseudoscience. I suggest spending a little more time reading about real science written by real scientists.
Yesterday night Klaus Toepfer, former UNEP chairman, said in german TV that the last IPCC report found a "90 per cent probability" that man is changing the climate.
"And there are still many people hoping for those other 10 per cent", he said. "Now imagine you are boarding an airplane, and the pilot tells you that with a 90 per cent probability the plane will crash on that flight. Do you expect anybody to stay in that plane?"
'But global warming's science is dubious'
'Climate change' is a much better term, and I think that most honest scientific discussion hinges on how the climate is changing - generally, 'gloabl warming' is bandied about by those with an agenda.
But in what sense is the science dubious? As a predictive model of future climate in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? etc. If you mean that the future is unknown, and that climate is an incredibly complex system, with a myriad of external influences, and a number of unknown parameters, well, no argument there.
If you mean that human caused geological scale emissions of CO2 over several centuries due to the burning of fossil fuels is somehow in the realm of 'dubious science,' well, good luck, as we all are participants in a planetary scale climate experiment, regardless of how dubious the science is in the eyes of some of those taking part.
As a matter of fact, essentially as far into the future as can be imagined, human beings will be able to seriously advance the still fairly primitive state of their understanding of Earth's climate, as they will have one major variable (atmospheric CO2) which was not introduced by natural means - that is, by reversing several hundred million years of carbon removal, humans will be able to conclusively experience what it means to reintroduce it to their one and only planetary habitat.
In a few centuries, the science will be anything but dubious.
The science of how methane is being reintroduced to the atmosphere is a brand new area, where the science is exciting, not 'dubious.'
Another exciting scientific area involves the history of the discovery of the ozone hole - for example, at this link, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct99_1.htm , 'NASA instruments have been measuring Antarctic ozone levels since the early 1970s. Since the discovery of the ozone "hole" in 1985, TOMS has been a key instrument for monitoring ozone levels over the Earth.' What that little text misses is found at this link - http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html -
'A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC's and that shock came in a 1985 field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin. Published in _Nature_, May 1985, the study summarized data that had been collected by the British Antartic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. The authors had been somewhat hesitant about publishing because Nimbus-7 satellite data had shown no such drop during the Antarctic spring. But NASA soon discovered that the spring-time ''ozone hole'' had been covered up by a computer-program desiged to discard sudden, large drops in ozone concentrations as ''errors''. The Nimbus-7 data was rerun without the filter-program and evidence of the Ozone-hole was seen as far back as 1976.'
See, in 1985, the ozone hole was dubious science, without any satellite data backing it up, and the sceptics (I personally knew one when working at a PR department - pleasant man, and very well paid for his scientific credentials) had a field day showing just how dubious the science of ozone depletion was.
Strangely, these days, you don't hear too much about the man-made destruction of the Antartic's ozone layer, the international agreements which seem to have at least halted the process, and the fact that the sceptics tended to be even more wedded to their economic well being than that of their fellow man, while proudly sprouting their platitudes about science while contributing nothing in terms of actual research, especially as how ludicrous their well founded scepticism was revealed to be, though this was long after their checks had cleared the bank.
Climate change will be a serious issue with immense complexity, and many people will simplify it for their own ends, no debate there. But the history of scientific inquiry tends to be marred by massive economic interests hindering such inquiry at any turn which may threaten their profits or business model.
Instead of an edit, a second post concerning that second NASA link.
This link is quite confusing, which may because the last edit was May 30, 2001. Though they present the paragraph I noted as fact, it is then contradicted thusly -
'It is important to note that the description of the discovery of the ozone hole presented above is not accurate. Dr Richard D. McPeters, Principal Investigator, Earth Probe TOMS at Goddard Space Flight Center explains "Ozone is derived on a FOV-FOV basis and there has never been a filter applied as described. The explanation I usually see is that we "threw out" the low values. This is not correct either. Our software had flags for ozone that was lower than 180 DU, a value lower than had ever been reliably reported prior to 1983. In 1984, before publication of the Farman paper, we noticed a sudden increase in low value from October of 1983. We had decided that the values were real and submitted a paper to the conference the following summer when Joe's paper came out, showing the same thing. As the first one in print, he gets full credit for discovery of the ozone hole. It makes a great story to talk about how NASA "missed" the ozone hole, but it isin't quite true."
This is a very strange addendum - especially the 'isin't' mistake, and how it flatly contradicts what was not attributed as a story, and then attempts to show that the story is somehow wrong, while at the same confirming the fact that data was ignored until 1984. Further, this disclaimer is written in such a way as to discredit all the information above it - for example, the fact that 'In 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light.' would seem to be part of the 'not accurate' discovery of the ozone hole.
Strange - this all has a certain memory hole feel to it, actually.
Got it - Google connects a few dots - the author of the article is Brien Sparling, who also seems involved with The Environmental Literacy Council, which according to this link at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Literacy_Counci... has the sort of funding you would expect of conservative/corporate America.
Wow - 2001 - it seems as at least a few Americans were far sighted, and very involved in helping the youth of America protect themselves against any of that science based reality clap-trap, unless it is 'good' science. Yes, things are not merely ignored, they get smothered when no one is looking.
Another cheap example, unfortunately.
Let us agree to climate change then, which is a term more accurate reflection of our reality.
The science is dubious in the sense, as you pointed out, that there are many hidden variables and the available computing power dedicated to the task of understanding climate is still very low. The science is dubious in the sense that it cannot make predictions when new facts are being uncovered about the workings of the climate. To say otherwise undermines the validity of the model's first answer.
What about when the business model is making science?
As for the ozone hole, well, we haven't been observing that area for all that long. I was just reading about Mt Erebus, a volcano continously spewing chlorine gas into the Antartic stratosphere. Is it any wonder that this area would show a thinning ozone, especially at a time when the Sun's UV rays, which would replenish the ozone, fades from view? Especially in a water-poor zone, water which would otherwise mitigate the effect of volcanic chlorine?
As to why we don't hear from PR people, well, the Montreal Protocol went into effect, the battle is lost, so why keep paying?
It doesn't matter. Do you buy insurance, for anything? Even thought the proposition that your house will burn down is (to say the least) "dubious", you buy insurance regardless, right? It doesn't require 100% ironclad knowledge that your house will burn down before you buy fire insurance, at least for most people it doesn't.
Regardless of the state of the art, the only thing that must be proven is that it IS PLAUSIBLE that human CO2 emissions will cause a very serious and long lasting problem. This hurdle was passed many years ago, and it has been continuously upgraded from plausible to likely to just about certain since then. Given the availability of substitutes (it is 100% idiocy that we burn coal, killing millions of people a year worldwide for electricity, as an example), those substitutes should be utilized as soon as possible. In the case of coal we'd actually save money, medical bills aren't cheap, they're more than enough to cover the differential between coal and most other power sources. Once we get rid of all the things that not only cause climate change, but are also actually more expensive and nasty than the alternatives, then maybe we can even talk about whether or not spending more resources on energy is worth it, or just roll the dice and take what we've got. We haven't even come close to reaching that point yet, and we likely never will.
The future will almost certainly see us using effectively all the world's oil in the next decade or two, and gas will be close behind. They will be exhausted long before the economists realize that they are not physicists, so that problem will "take care of itself", in the sense that we're probably already locked in for 100% of the bad effects that might come from this. The only carbon source of significance that isn't all but guaranteed to end up in the atmosphere in the next 100 years is coal, if we steer clear of that one, we're probably at least in much better shape. This is just about the only choice we have to make at this point anyway, and it's a no-brainer. It costs us more to burn coal than most of the alternatives (due primarily to medical bills resulting from poisoned water, mercury in fish, emphysema, etc...), and that's without even considering climate change.
Of course, digging up what untouched wilderness we have left for a few more barrels of oil doesn't help anybody. It won't be enough to change that fact that in 50 years cars had better be electrical, and it certainly won't make climate change any less bad, so why do it at all?
'What about when the business model is making science?'
This seems quite strange as a perspective - as if there is some sort of business associated with observing data in the physical world around us, formulating a hypothesis/theory which can be refuted, then attempting to gather additional data to either confirm or refute the original hypothesis/theory. Obviously, as a human endeavor, it shares human flaws, including vested interests and inertia (comets as a major, if not the main, source of water on Earth is my favorite example of a current proven paradigm which will take a generation to be accepted, much like plate tectonics took that long for acceptance) and all the participants do agree on a set of rules, which may be pithily summed in the observation that while you can dispute theories, you can't dispute facts. And science can be done by anyone - whether a monk in his garden, or an alchemist who just happens to make a few pertinent observations about prisms, for example.
As for the science, the suggestion of visiting somewhere like realclimate.org is a very good one - there are a number of effects of vulcanism on climate, for example, and that is a fairly good forum to discuss such matters, though a rigorous one.
Without trying to cast any aspersions, there is something strange in your posting style, which seems to attribute motives to people without actually knowing the individuals at all. In the case of climate change, many more people are convinced of it these days, because they simply notice the world around them, which is not the same as a scientific explanation. And those who often opposed seem to have a direct interest in continuing their activities, regardless of scientific evidence - as witnessed by the company that started this thread.
It is quite reasonable to keep pointing out facts in a scientific discussion when discussing an explanatory framework, but to imply that the discussion somehow trumps the facts is simply not correct.
So you've just been reading up on Mt. Erebus and now you KNOW that it is the major source of the stratospheric ozone that helps create the annual ozone hole(s)?
Sorry. Scientists have known for decades that volcanoes spew chlorine, in the form of HCl, into the troposphere. As a result, chlorine from Mt. Erebus was one of the first suspects for causing the ozone hole after the hole was initially reported. However, scientists quickly discovered that very little HCl from volcanoes makes it up into the stratosphere because HCl combines very easily and very rapidly with water vapor and condenses out of the troposphere in rainfall. This NASA article discussing volcanic chlorine sources as a cause of the ozone hole is just one of many sources on this subject.
Even though "typcical" non-explosive volcanic emissions were soon ruled out as significant stratospheric chlorine sources, there was still some concern that major eruptions such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, the largest volcano eruption since 1912, with their columns of smoke reaching 20 or more kilometers up into the sky, might be major, albeit irregular, sources.
Extensive direct measurements of HCl from Mt. Pinatubo in the stratosphere has lead researchers to determine that it contributed less than .04 million tons of HCl to the stratosphere. For comparison, about 1 million tons of human produced CFCs and related compounds were being added to the stratosphere each year at the time th ozone hole was first reported.
The Mt. Saint Helen's and El Chichon eruption of the 1980's also added very small amounts of HCl to the stratosphere, as small or smaller than Mt. Pinatubo. Research very strongly suggests that even mega-eruptions, such as Krakatoa in the early 1800's, are usually not a major source of stratospheric HCl. Those eruptions produce as much as 1000 times more water vapor than HCl. As the eruption plume rises, the water vapor condenses into liquid. Given the very high affinity of HCl for water, the liquid water quickly washes almost all the HCl from the plume. For a much more detailed discussion and explanation, with extensive scientific references, see this.
Sorry to butt in here - I never intended to post on this site (for personal reasons I haven't posted anywhere for years). However, since I have found the level of interaction on this forum to be a significant cut above that of others I have seen, I would like to make an observation. In this thread there is something I have noticed occur from time to time: intolerance of ideas that are not considered mainstream to this site. While the flames at Paradox have been mild, the tenor is, I think, one that can cause lurkers such as I am, and posters of variant ideas, to ultimately flee the company of those here.
Let me begin by quoting from two comments on this post begun by Paradox.
Sunspot wrote:
Second, by Expat:
Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory.
Concerning the first point: I am a scientist, I have a higher degree in applied science, I have been employed in applied science most of my working life. I am now semi-retired. I can assure everyone who is reading this that you will not learn 'truth' by reading works written by 'real scientists'. The only thing you will learn is the scientist's opinions about the facts they have. It can be as grossly biased as that of any pseudo-scientist (such as Velikovsky).
Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge.
Concerning the second point: I am a total political sceptic. If the pollys are beating very heavily on one drum, look around, someone or something is being hidden from you. In the case of GW I believe that something is PO as personified in Iraq/Iran.
My most serious point is that concerning the comment by Expat. Without meaning anything personal against Expat, I feel the belief Expat expresses here is an almost universal falsehood and is one of the most egregious errors that we humans are making based on a false premise that has been espoused by environmentalists and greenies for decades.
The idea that humans are not part of nature probably began when religions first decided that we are a special creation, apart from nature, and ruling over it. I know that many here probably feel this is true, if so, you will probably concur with Expat that what we humans do is unnatural. I do not agree.
If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms.
Environmentalists (whether scientists or laypersons) tell us it is unnatural for us to mine and exploit this fossil material and therefore wrong to do this. Why is it being stated that this recycling is wrong? After all, all that can happen is the planet is returned to the equally natural environment it experienced for hundreds of millions of years while higher life forms were evolving.
My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities.
nice little attempt at promoting 'double think' while throwing fud at the scientific process. the reason why climate change is accepted is that it has been tested by many people many different times.
they all basically came to the same conclusion. we are changing the climate, and we have been since the beginning of agriculture.
Hi TrueKaiser,
Never heard of a 'fud' but I guess it must be like dung?
However, I believe precisely the opposite of what you say. I wish more peple understood science and what scientists actually do. The scientific process is one of mankind's truely great achievements. And it usually works very well. Unfortunately, few lay people understand that theoretical science is rarely about discovering truth, it is about developing theories that can successfully avoid being falsified. A round-a-bout, but very effective, way of eliminating poorly reasoned assumptions.
Hence my warning, the non-scientist needs to realise that a quorum of scientists believing the same thing does not make it so, it just means that their theory is probably the last standing current theory on the subject. That does not make the current theory ultimate truth or that a new and better theory won't appear tomorrow. The simplest example being Newton/Einstein. Both theories of motion are right to a point, but then each breaks down. One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.
Science is good, I'm a lover of science and scientific method. But it should not interfere with intelligent thinking about alternatives - which is, after all, what science is all about.
'One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.'
Newton has not been 'supplanted' - Newtonian physics remain a cornerstone of various disciplines involving motion on this planet. What has happened is that Newtonian physics is seen as being applicable to a certain range of reality - after all relativity effects are easily ignored in automobile engineering.
Quite correct. Isaac's concepts are immensely useful, but they are not absolutes. Similarly, climate change theories are still little more than an explanation of an observed state of change in the planet's operation. To believe absolutely that we are all doomed because the climate is changing is not warranted by any observable data. The exact opposite could equally hold true.
Ian,
FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt".
It is a well established technique that is routinely used with great success by those who wish to manipulte the mob.
We all seem to agree that the "science" of climate change is a young one and full of uncertainties. However, given the "gravity" of the potential danger posed by methane burps and runaway warming, shouldn't we be giving this a lot more serious consideration than that of merely mocking those who cry wolf?
Remember, at the end of the tale, the wolf did come.
I'm with you Ian. I am not a 'practicing scientist' but spent an undergraduate career in the sciences and have had one foot in the academic sphere most of my life (another foot in the blue-collar world, and my third foot in the technical world :>).
I generally enjoy expat's posts and agree with much of what he/she says, but I take issue with the old 'canard' of "you can't argue with facts." It always depends, as a good scientist knows, whose version of the facts you are dealing with.
My main beef with many in the scientific world, or, even worse, scientist wannabes, is the lack of understanding of the epistemology of science. One of the best courses I ever took was a history of science. Great for the perspective of how the 'truth' changes depending not only on the data we collect but the general way thinking proceeding at a particular time in history.
Better leave it at that before rambling into a volume or two.
ET,
Of course the majority view is constantly changing.
Let's hope it continues to change.
The current view is taking us straight to the edge of the cliff:
1. The Market will provide
(1a) The Invisible Appendage knows best.
2. Technology will arrive on a "just-in-time" basis and save us.
3. Things are never as bad as they seem.
4. God loves me and will never let anything bad happen to me.
Not to get all ontological here, but if you wish to insist that there is something to discuss about a measurable fact like current CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, a concentration represented independently using similar instrumentation on many points of the globe, then we aren't really talking about science. And yes, a lot of people seem to think science is static, and that what they learned in school is somehow anchored - far from it.
In this sense, whether you wish to call it a fact, a data point, or a measurement, the essential element is that this bit of observed information remains independent of the observer - and no, now is not the time to jump into quantum physics, or Pirsig's 'quality' or whatever else strikes our fancy. But the albedo of the Artic's sea ice is higher than its water, and that fact remains pretty hard to dispute, even as we dispute the various definitions of sea ice and albedo. The changing ratio of reflection and absorption of solar radiation in the Artic will be completely unaffected by this discussion, however - which is what I mean by 'fact.'
Does this mean we are doomed? I don't know about anyone else here, but I am utterly and completely certain that everyone I know, including myself, will die. That to me is a fact, which many, many people seem to have a hard time with. Of course the climate changes, of course every civilization ends, of course things change. That is the beginning of the discussion, not its end, as we are not dead yet.
I disagree that the 'bit of observed information' remains independent of the observer. This is exactly what I mean when pointing out the lack of understanding of an epistemology of science. Putting it in another way that makes it more obvious, "No observations are independent of the observer."
I don't wish to get into a long discussion on this, but if you pick up a good book on history of science or, better yet, read an old book on science, you may be surprised at how many 'facts' have changed over time.
The bottom line is that the word 'fact' conveys a level of absoluteness of knowledge that IMO does not actually exist. And, no, this is not solipsism or a denial that we cannot know anything. It is just a reminder of the limits of our ability to know.
Exactly.
I used to buy/sell books as the bread and butter of my business. I once came upon a large number of the Signet Science Library collection, a collection of small paperbacks with volumes on scientists, and on scientific ideas, spanning the late 1940s up into the early 1950s.
These were popular books. People bought them and bought them for their kids. People and their kids read them.
They were great reading. I used to wake up at 8AM and spend an hour in bed reading one, before starting my day. They're great stuff - also hard to find these days.
One thing that shocked me like a slap in the face though: The "new" science we're getting served up in magazines like Discover and Scientific American, etc., is in these books.
How do I get this across? The average Amurrikan thinks "all these new things" are being come up with, but what they're seeing/hearing is old stuff that's 50 or more years known, with a silver lining of media glitz.
The new stuff isn't happening in the US anyway, it's happening in Japan and Europe and India and even odd places like pockets of the ex-USSR.
Once we've Olduvai'd a bit down further, it won't matter anyway, old tech will be new news to most.
Hello Ian,
If your definition of "natural" includes burning oil & coal and polluting the atmosphere ... well, you might as well define "dropping nuclear bombs on cities" as natural, too.
You ask: How can it be wrong?
Simply: These behaviors could drive Homo sapiens to extinction.
And, yes, the extinction of the Homo sapiens is a perfectly natural act. Perfectly acceptable, too, in my view.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello, David Mathews
What time are you passing out the 'punch' tomorrow?
It might be useful to think about this "nature", "not nature" bit as being more about "biosphere", "not biosphere". The higher animals, and the plants that support us, have evolved in a world where all that carbon was hidden away. So if out interest is really in protecting the biosphere that we need to continue living then calling coal mining "unnatural" seems OK to me.
You could say the same about creating thousands of tons on nuclear waste.
Well, the comment about 'natural means' ties into the fact that human activities have managed to release geological scale amounts of CO2 in a couple of centuries that had been accumulated over hundreds of millions of years - generally speaking, oil wells and coal mines aren't what most people consider 'natural processes.'
And this brings up the question of something tricky - call it intent, call it self-awareness, call it intelligence. We have made choices (being a more or less firm believer in both free will and in responsibility for one's actions), and these choices are not in the same category as natural law.
A debatable point, but when the next city gets nuked, please don't tell me it exactly the same thing as an asteroid hitting a planetary surface. I find the difference quite, quite plain, even if tritium fusion is a 'natural process.'
I find it amusing that someone seriously writes about thinking away from the mainstream as a measure of objective reality - after all, 20 years ago, belief in 'global warming' (which means nothing to me - I believe in climate change, and think that human actions are only a part of it) was the belief which contradicted what was taught by respected scientists, religious dogma, and the media.
It must be interesting to live in a worldview that is constantly changing based on how many people accept it. This is one of the appeals of peak oil as a hobby - whether accepted or not, the amount of oil coming out of the pipeline is the only measure. Reality - coming soon to a society near you.
Ian down under - "Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory."
Interesting attempt to both patronise and confuse the AGW argument. So you are a scientist so answer this how does 98% of scientists accepting the theory or polititians promoting the theory change the facts to make your opinion change? The scientists that accept AGW theory do so because the theory fits with observed facts. As a self proclaimed scientist are you proposing the facts change because scientists accept a theory? No new research has been published in peer reviewed literature that contradicts AGW theory enough to cause a scientists such as yourself to disbelieve. So you would need to list the facts that have changed.
"Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge."
Absolutely thats why there is such a thing as peer review. It may be flawed however it does catch most of this. You saying this is like someone saying "some of my best friends are black or gay" as a preface to claims that they are not racist or homophobic. You suggesting that you as a scientist should distrust other scientists but believe you is almost the same thing.
"If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms."
Absolute and complete rubbish. How can you possibly compare the industrial mining of billions of tons of carbon compounds from where the Earth has safely sequestered them with animals in the cycle of life or a random event like a meteor. This is not even close to scientific and seriously casts doubts on your credentials. The NATURAL carbon cycle of the Earth has consigned this carbon to a place where it is out of the cycle. Us unnaturally digging it up is totally outside the natural cycle.
"My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities."
Absolutely correct. However by your definition as a scientist you are telling us to look beyond what you are saying. So we can't trust scientists such as yourself so who can we trust? Corporations???? You might be spoon fed through the media however you have picked the wrong crowd to try and preach this load of BS.
Anytime you want to debate the facts of AGW try me however how about you stop with the patronising BS.
Hi Ender,
Thank you for commenting on my post. It is this type of reply I am most keen to hear. As I stated, 'I was a happy believer in GW' - what I now see was a very dangerous position. Belief, instead of knowledge is a certain way to error. When I read that 98% of scientists accept GW the absurd concept entered my head that this means that only 2% of scientists must be climatologists. Thus began my lateral thinking on the subject.
This is not my contention at all. I am totally happy that scientists have measured CO2 levels, that they have drilled ice cores, that they have peer reviewed each other's work. That is all science, that is inarguable. What is not science is the creation of models looking out five or seven decades through the most complex system we know of - the biosphere - and arriving at conclusions that tell us we are doomed to cyclones, droughts, drowned islands and all the other fears that are being promoted. This is not science, this is speculation based on a necessarily limited data input about a dynamic, complex and poorly understood system.
Climate Change is happening, it may have serious consequences, it may equally have very positive changes that I have not seen addressed: CO2 is food, plant growth in many systems may be accelerated, phytoplankton, zooplankton, krill, whales, fishing may all be positively effected. I've seen nothing of the potential positives of the increase in CO2. We know during the earlier periods of Earth's existence, when coal and oil were being formed, that while all this CO2 was being converted into biomass the planet flourished and evolution rampaged along. Why now is this beneficent gas suddenly a poison?
The only object that can be outside the natural cycle is a divine presence. Granted, if there is a God that created the Earth and placed the fossil fuels underground to (well I can't think why she would have done that)…then okay it's outside the natural cycle. However, there is no mechanism in the natural carbon cycle that could have placed the carbon where it is, I'm sure it was a natural rather than supernatural phenomenon, perhaps meteor strike? But it was not the carbon cycle. All the biomass in the fossil fuels would be still being recycled if the carbon cycle had been allowed to function freely.
I worked for 25 years for the world's biggest mining company. I witnessed first-hand the devastation that this company has created in PNG. I was horrified to see how little that massive corporation cared about the indigenous population or the flora and fauna of that beautiful country. I saw a pristine river turned into a yellow cess-pond running for hundreds of kilometers through virgin forests. I'm not spoon-fed by the media. I've been at the coal-face in person. And yes, it was a part of the natural state - if we accept that humans are natural and we are guided by our natural insitincts for survival and that we are not divinely created - that doesn't make it desirable.
I'm not preaching, I am voicing an opinion that we are not looking properly at the whole GW debate and emotions, politics and pre-conceived ideas are clouding the debate - one of the biggest being that whatever humans do is somehow 'unnatural'. If you think this is patronising to the thinkers on this forum, that's fine, I don't believe that controversial questions and concepts are patronising - quite the opposite.
Very unlikely. First humanity has built it's infrastructure and even culture around the climate "as is". ANY changes (and the period of chaos as changes appear) will be negative. Each spring farmers must decide whether to plant wheat, corn, soybeans or even rice in his fields. Uncertainity over which climate to plant for is VERY negative ! (And if wheat growing areas become corn growing; what to do with all the wheat threshers ?)
Stable is good; change is bad.
And one specific I am aware of. 98% of the native trees of Iceland are one species; Icelandic birch. And unheated greenhouse controlled experiments have shown that higher levels of CO2 "confuse" the Icelandic birch in preparing for winter hardening; resulting in much more severe frost damage some years. As a consequence, the Icelandic Forest Service is importing exotics and trying to develop some minimal adaptation to the various Icleandic climates.
Best hopes,
Alan
PS: I did not read closely, but did you claim to be a scientist ?
While you certainly have the right to debate the issue, I would suggest that you go over to realclimate.org to do so. You will find that there are many qualified climate scientists there that can fully engage you on the issues and adequately address each of your points. In fact, I believed they have already addressed the cosmic ray theory and found it fully inaeqaute. I think you will also find that the climate scientists take into account the effects of volcanoes and earthquake. In fact, I am surprised you brought up volcanoes, because, if anything, they tend to cause cooling, not warming. So despite what you call the "more active geology", we have warming. I think you will also find some answers regarding the alleged warming of Mars, etc.
Climate change is the most throughly researched phenomenon in the history of science and the most thorougly peer reviewed. Yes, we don't know everything, but our knowledge of this phenomenon is vastly superior to what is was decades ago. I think intellectual honesty requires that you engage the real experts and not the random individual on this cite who may know a bit about climate science, but not be an expert. I think you will find that we are less ignorant of how the climate works that you seem to think.
As for your claim that money is driving GW research, that is absurd. If the motivation was money, climate scientists would express a greater degree of skepticism, not certainty. If one is certain about a phenomenon, this is hardly an argument for getting more funding. If one expresses skepticism, however, that is an argument for more money for more research to iron out the uncertainties.
So, go to realclimate.org and give it your best short, that is your claim that the science is dubious. And the n try to back up that claim. I think you will find that your assertions are dubious and you will not be able to adequately defend your positions. If you think the scientists have not considered your objections, you are sadly ignorant of the state of the science.
And btw, have your hear of global dimming? The irony is that if we had not made the progress we have made regarding pollutant emissions, the world would be even warmer than it is.
So, go to realclimate.org and give it your best short, that is your claim that the science is dubious. And the n try to back up that claim.
Better advice would be to go to realclimate.org and lurk. Ill-informed people should listen more, argue less.