Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:28 pm**

rstevenson wrote:
jluetjen said... I don't care how complex or highly regarded the models or the scientist are -- if what they are saying defies common sense, I don't buy it.
Many things that scientists say defy common sense. That's why they get the big bucks.

If you disregard what scientists are saying, then you taking what is essentially a religious position (in the sense that you are stating a belief, unshakable and unprovable.)

I prefer to listen to the UNcommon sense of scientists. That's how I learn.

Rob

So you're saying that scientist are innately a religious crowd since the routinely disagree with each other?

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:40 pm**

jluetjen wrote:Actually Einstein's theories had to wait many years before they were proven.

Neither theory has been, or can be proven. However, both acquired substantial supportive evidence within just a few years of their publication. Eddington's occultation measurements were performed just two years after Einstein published GR, and were compelling enough to convince most physicists of the theory's validity. Additional support accrued over many decades (and continues to accrue today), but it isn't at all true to say that it took many years for support to develop.

So far no the AGW crowd has failed to accomplish the same.

Well, the Earth's climate is vastly more complex that General Relativity, or any other fundamental laws of physics. Nevertheless, the vast majority of scientists who specialize in climate research would disagree with your assertion. Nearly all agree that AGW is real, and differ primarily in their opinions on magnitude. Indeed, most of the "dissenters" that show up in places like the aforementioned Senate report don't disagree that AGW is real, they just feel that the numbers aren't solid enough to use for significant public policy decisions.

The reason that this fails the common sense test is because if CO2 was the cause of global warming because of it's greenhouse abilities, then the change in temperature should always follow significant changes in CO2.

That is not at all true. As I noted before, the temperature is determined (in part) by the combined effects of multiple greenhouse gases. If you don't know what all of them are doing, you can't predict any sort of relationship between temperature and just one. It is presumed that in the distant past, climatic shifts resulted from events that would have played havoc with multiple atmospheric components. It isn't as simple as just saying that an x% change in CO2 concentration produces a y% change in temperature.

The recent (200 year) correlation between CO2 and temperature is very clear, however, and exists because most other greenhouse gases are not changing much in concentration, while CO2 is. That makes it much easier to deconvolve CO2's effects- something that is nearly impossible for the distant past.

But by virtue of saying that the models are complex suggests a couple of things...
1) The more variables in the model, the relatively less significant the impact of CO2 is.

That doesn't follow. The impact of CO2 is what it is, and it doesn't change with the complexity of the model.

If it really is 60% or 80% of the cause for global warming, you wouldn't need a complex model! You could model it directly with CO2, but as I've shown above, that method doesn't work.

I've already discussed this as well. It is known with high confidence that the current warming trend is primarily a product of increasing CO2 concentrations. You don't need much of a model at all to determine this- it comes mainly from basic theory. The reason models are complex isn't to tell us this, it is to tell us what will happen in the future. And the reason for the complexity is because as the temperature rises, a plethora of other things change. Some of those things provide negative feedback and help moderate the system. Others give positive feedback and could drive things out of control. The complex models seek to identify and solve for all those variables.

2) That leaves us with the conclusion that CO2 may be only one of a number of variables involved in climate change.

That is undisputed. That doesn't change the fact that in the current climate system, it is CO2 that is primarily driving the heat rise, and that an effective way of dealing with it is to reduce the CO2 concentrations before the system tips into another regime, where other, less predictable elements may dominate.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:52 am**

jluetjen wrote:
So far no the AGW crowd has failed to accomplish the same. Sure CO2 and temperatures have increased. That proves nothing except that they appear to move in a similar fashion over the short term. The reason that this fails the common sense test is because if CO2 was the cause of global warming because of it's greenhouse abilities, then the change in temperature should always follow significant changes in CO2.

They do but you must also take into account the mitigating factors that are inherent in the source of the CO2.

jluetjen wrote:Not just in the geologically miniscule time frame of the last 100's or 1000's of years, but also across 10,000's and millions. The fact is that CO2 was 100's of time higher in the past,

Again, this is a false arguement. the only time CO2 was dramatically higher was about 500 million years ago. Currently CO2 is at 385ppm average but in that distant past it was between 6000 and 7000ppm not even 20 times higher. To be 100 times higher it would need to be 38,500ppm which is highly toxic to most animals.

jluetjen wrote: for a long time, but yet the temperature only was about 10 degrees warmer flies directly in the face of your statement that a 2x or 4x increase in CO2 is going to cause our temperature to go up by 2 degrees.

Again you need to consider the source of the CO2 and the other factors involved. In this case, the major CO2 source was volcanism but volcanos spew more than just CO2.
Volcanic eruptions routinely contain:
Carbon Dioxide
(Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.)
Sulfur Dioxide
The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth's short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas which is converted to sulfuric acid by interaction with the sun's rays and stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid between 15 to 25 kilometers altitude and last many years.
Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.
Chlorine
Chlorine gas can negatively effect the earth's environment by destroying ozone.
Fluorine
Which can condense in rain or on ash particles and cover grass and pollute water sources with excess fluorine. Animals that eat grass coated with fluorine-tainted ash can be poisoned by fluorisis, an affliction that eventually kills animals by destroying their bones.

And of course Ash, Pumice, Magma(lava), and rocks.

Some things to consider before interjecting this arguement again.

Autos, and cleaner energy sources produce cleaner CO2 and therefore fewer aerosols that mitigate the ammount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Therefore we receive ample ammounts of the side of the equation which blocks solar radiation from leaving the atmosphere. But, without the mitigating side which blocks transmission into the atmosphere.

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa effected the global climate with just 1 major eruption which lasted from May 20 1883, on and off and on again, until August 28 1883 appx 3 months.

Global climate effects from the eruption:
In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.

Global optical effects
The eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.

This was just 1 eruption from 1 volcano during the period of our beginning of industrialization.
500,000,000 years ago there was more than just 1 volcano undergoing constant eruption spewing vast ammounts of CO2, SO2, Ash into the atmosphere causing CO2 levels to rise to 6-7000 ppm but also with ash and SO2 stopping much solar radiation from reaching the surface.

Volcanos spew more than just CO2 which blocks solar radiations escape to space, they also spew ash which blocks solar radiation from reaching earth to begin the heating cycle and Sulfur Dioxide which promotes cloud development increasing albedo and also acting to reduce initial solar radiation's enter into the cycle.

SO in the past, CO2 levels were nearly 20 times higher but the atmosphere was also filled with ash and SO2 which greatly reduced the ammount of heat entering the cycle to begin with.

ERGO highly elevated CO2 levels with moderately elevated temperatures.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:34 am**

Have you ever had the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your house? They can be quite persistent. My mother, god rest her soul, told me how to dispatch them. Tell them that you are Catholic. They will respect your right to choose your faith, as long as you have faith. They know that faith, by definition, cannot be argued.

There is no theory of AGW. There are some nebulous computer models, and the temperature ‘hockey stick’ that has been discredited, and a lot of talk about greenhouse gases. CO2’s effect trails off logarithmically, and we are already near saturation, so there is speculation about methane or CFC’s. Speculation, but no theory. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It can be easily disproved. Find one species that does not have an origin. If it were a theory, AGW could be easily disproved, the earth is cooling.

AGW is a belief, not a theory. Al Gore is the spiritual leader for the AGW alarmists. He was the keynote speaker at the prestigious AAAS convention this spring, and spoke before the US Congress on Friday. Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a TV evangelist preacher. With his hair slicked back and fiery tone he preaches about mans’ sins. We are too many, we use too many resources, our cars and houses are too big and we eat too much meat. Unless we repent our sins we will be punished and the earth will burn in hell.

Unlike the infamous evangelists of the past, Al Gore does not try to hide his failings. So strong is the alarmists’ faith that Al can openly ride in chauffeured limousines, fly in private jets, live in a big expensive house, drive big expensive cars, dine in five star restaurants and even own a luxury houseboat without causing concern amongst his followers. If Al believed one iota of his own rhetoric one would think that it would have some effect on his own lifestyle.

No one can argue AGW with the alarmists because it is their faith, their religion, and religion does not subject itself to science or logic. But unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the alarmists have no tolerance for any other faiths or religions. All nonbelievers must be destroyed or the world will burn in hell. I wish that the alarmists, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would learn to accept and even respect other peoples’ beliefs.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:17 pm**

No theory can be proved, only dis-proved. So your argument is: because the limits of data and data interpretation on AGW cannot prove an increasing trend of of ∆t (an unprovable point), resolves as: without proof positive, we as owners of this planet should halt collection of data on this heresy, humans are relinquished of any responsibility and human behavior and practices are best left to our immediate convenience. If this is not your logic please clarify.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:25 am**

Chris,

Your silence is deafening. Whats the matter, Al Gore got your tongue?

Our perhaps you are busy building your ark?

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:55 am**

hydroresearch wrote:Chris,
Your silence is deafening. Whats the matter, Al Gore got your tongue?

Actually, I've been out riding, trying to find a way to the top of a nearby 12,000 ft peak. I expect my time was better spent doing that than trying to respond to the same old arguments, which have already been addressed, but seem to be the only things that the anti-AGW folks seem to be able to come up with.

If I see something new, I'll consider responding.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:15 am**

Redbone wrote:
No one can argue AGW with the alarmists because it is their faith, their religion, and religion does not subject itself to science or logic. But unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the alarmists have no tolerance for any other faiths or religions. All nonbelievers must be destroyed or the world will burn in hell. I wish that the alarmists, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would learn to accept and even respect other peoples’ beliefs.

It has nothing to do with beliefs, but all to do with unwillingness to play with fire. Your uses of the pejorative "alarmist" clearly demonstrate that you are one of those conservatives (mostly Republicans but also some Democrats and independents) who values money, comfort, convenience, and having fun doing what you damn please, the consequences be damned! So to avoid feeling guilty about your preferred way of life and to protect it, you choose to disparage people who take ADW seriously in the hope of forestalling any actions that the government and community might take to address it. The Chinese and Indians know that we are going to have a potential catastrophe but they are unwilling to curb their carbon outputs in order to protect their economic growths, and they are insisting that the developed countries, meaning the West, borne the entire cost of migrating AGW. One more thing, are you aware that the Global Climate Coalition, which made up of fossil fuel companies and users went out of business in 2002 when they could no longer refute that the climate change is due to human activities?

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

For once, just be honest about your personal agendas! I have only one personal reason for being concerned about AGW: to protect my children and grandchildren's future. I will make no money out of this and have no desire to control people's lives. Do I think that the human race will succeed in stopping AGW? No, given the selfishness and self-centered attitude of people like you.

Gary

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:51 am**

starnut wrote:... you are one of those ... who values money, comfort, convenience, and having fun doing what you damn please,

Doing as what I damn well please is a good definition of freedom, and I value that a great deal.

... the consequences be damned!

You are so very sure of the consequences. All based on computer models. Are you aware that only nine or so years into their 100-year projections, that they're wrong? If you check out figure 10.5 in the 2007 IPCC Assessment report and compare that to the latest plot of average world temperatures from any one of the accepted sources i.e., GISS, UAH, HADCRUT RSS, any one of them shows a current value less than all of the twenty or so models plotted out. Think about it they missed! If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.

So to avoid feeling guilty about your preferred way of life and to protect it, you choose to disparage people who take ADW seriously in the hope of forestalling any actions that the government and community might take to address it.

You might give some consideration to the motivations of people on your side of the argument. You might consider that the issue is thoroughly immersed in politics. If you can't see that it is, you need to open your eyes.

The Chinese and Indians know that we are going to have a potential catastrophe but they are unwilling to curb their carbon outputs in order to protect their economic growths, and they are insisting that the developed countries, meaning the West, borne the entire cost of migrating AGW.

Yes, it's politics isn't it. 100% politics.

One more thing, are you aware that the Global Climate Coalition, which made up of fossil fuel companies and users went out of business in 2002 when they could no longer refute that the climate change is due to human activities?

Never heard of them. Too bad. Wikipedia is not the best source for controversial issues.

For once, just be honest about your personal agendas!

You need to put that question to the people pushing this issue.

I have only one personal reason for being concerned about AGW: to protect my children and grandchildren's future.

My parents suffered through the Great Depression, I don't want my children to bear that as well. That's what's going to happen if much of what these politicians are proposing gets made into law.

I will make no money out of this and have no desire to control people's lives.

There are those who will and do, one of them just yesterday was testifying before Congress.

Do I think that the human race will succeed in stopping AGW? No, given the selfishness and self-centered attitude of people like you.

That's right! All six or seven billion people in this world aren't going to change their ways. What power on Earth do you think would ever do that? Who would you entrust with such power? Think about that for a second. Whatever truth there is or isn't regarding "Global Warming", we should prepare for it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:36 am**

I am curious to ask the proponents of the AGW hypothesis here a question. What things might you accept as evidence of the falsification of the AGW hypothesis? How about the lack of the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the computer models? How about the lack of any warming as measured by satellite microwave radiometers? How long must the current cooling trend persist before you begin to wonder about the lack of correlation with CO2 abundance? Just what would it take to cause you to question the AGW hypothesis?

Thanks for any responses.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:29 pm**

gpobserver wrote:I am curious to ask the proponents of the AGW hypothesis here a question. What things might you accept as evidence of the falsification of the AGW hypothesis? How about the lack of the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the computer models?

In general, there are no "single item" failures like this for models that would bother me too much. I expect models to be imperfect- the global climate system is extremely complex. With the models, what I consider is the balance of predictions and prediction failures. If that tipped heavily towards failures, I'd have doubts. But what I see in reality is a steady increase in the complexity of the models, and a resulting improvement in predictive ability.

How about the lack of any warming as measured by satellite microwave radiometers?

It depends what that means. Satellite radiometers are used for measuring temperature vs. altitude. They are poor instrument choices for making ground level measurements. So I don't know what I'd have to see here to concern me. Nothing comes to mind.

How long must the current cooling trend persist before you begin to wonder about the lack of correlation with CO2 abundance?

If you look at the recent temperature record, the twenty year average shows no declines in the last century. The ten year average shows declines lasting a few years. The five year average shows declines lasting as long as ten years. So I guess if I saw something like a steady decline in the ten year average, over 20 years or more, I'd consider that significant. If it happened without a corresponding correlation in CO2 concentration I'd consider it astonishing- something like finding out that the formulas for pendulum motion were wrong.

Just what would it take to cause you to question the AGW hypothesis?

Above all, what it would take would be a massive shift in consensus. Right now, something over 95% of climate scientists believe the evidence strongly supports global warming, driven primarily by human produced greenhouse gases (mainly CO2). Over 90% of earth scientists believe the same. That is an overwhelming weight of support. These are the people who study this directly; it is extremely difficult for me to believe that so many experts came to a fundamentally incorrect conclusion. I trust that a shift in evidence strong enough to change their opinions is much more useful to me in making a personal decision than any handful of individual results would be (and I get most of my information from primary reports, not from compilations).

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:45 am**

gpobserver wrote:I am curious to ask the proponents of the AGW hypothesis here a question. What things might you accept as evidence of the falsification of the AGW hypothesis? How about the lack of the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the computer models? How about the lack of any warming as measured by satellite microwave radiometers? How long must the current cooling trend persist before you begin to wonder about the lack of correlation with CO2 abundance? Just what would it take to cause you to question the AGW hypothesis?

Thanks for any responses.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

To me, it would need to be inclusive of but not limited to a continued increase of CO2 to a still reversable point beyond 450ppm and a continued atmospheric cooling of another .5c. However: the source of CO2 increase would need to be verifiable as Man Made sources and there can be no mitigating sources of atmospheric IR blocking (increased Volcanic activity adding ash and SO2 to create increased albedo in the upper atmosphere)
Question to you...If CO2 levels continue to increase, causing Arctic permafrost melt and subsequent bacterial growth that in turn releases more CH4, and if temps continue to climb in the presance of these increased gasses will you be willing to admit otherwise?

(edited to add)

After further thought...Another possible PROOF that AGW isn't, would be to see a drop in CO2 from 380ppm down to 340ppm but still maintain increasing global temperatures.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:47 pm**

StACase wrote:The Chinese and Indians know that we are going to have a potential catastrophe but they are unwilling to curb their carbon outputs in order to protect their economic growths, and they are insisting that the developed countries, meaning the West, borne the entire cost of migrating AGW.

Yes, it's politics isn't it. 100% politics.[/quote]

The politicians are powerless .. corporate and populace lusts are in control in China and India as they are in the rest of the world, including U.S. and Canada.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:46 pm**

aristarchusinexile wrote:...corporate and populace lusts are in control in China and India as they are in the rest of the world, including U.S. and Canada.

Oh yes, the evil corporations, the evil corporations who produce products and services at a price we can afford. Yes they are the evil ones that are destroying the planet.

"Global Warming" is nothing more than a ruse to destroy the corporations that one brand of politics hates with a passion. That brand of politics also seems to hate ordinary people; their arrogance is on display in the above quote.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:35 pm**

Thank you, Chris Peterson and BMAONE23, for your polite and carefully considered answers. Let us agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Chris Peterson wrote:
"Above all, what it would take would be a massive shift in consensus. Right now, something over 95% of climate scientists believe the evidence strongly supports global warming, driven primarily by human produced greenhouse gases (mainly CO2). Over 90% of earth scientists believe the same. That is an overwhelming weight of support. These are the people who study this directly; it is extremely difficult for me to believe that so many experts came to a fundamentally incorrect conclusion. I trust that a shift in evidence strong enough to change their opinions is much more useful to me in making a personal decision than any handful of individual results would be (and I get most of my information from primary reports, not from compilations)."

I am mistrustful of scientific consensus. In astronomy the consensus used to be the Ptolemaic theory until the observations of one man, Galileo, demonstrated that Copernicus was correct. There were those who were so opposed to his evidence that they refused to look through his telescope. In the Soviet Union Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) dominated agriculture from the 1920's until the 1960's. This is an example of what happens when science becomes politicized. I think the same is true of the AGW debate. There are substantial financial and career incentives for researchers and politicians to support the AGW hypothesis. For example, the personal wealth of Al Gore has increased substantially as a result of his promotion of the AGW narrative (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... dia-s-help). Climate researchers find it much easier to get approvals for their proposals if they support the 'consensus' (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 64B623ADA3). If I had a family to support and I was at the start of my professional career, I might be inclined to weigh my decisions based upon political realities. It does happen, I've seen a lot of politicized science in my career. The same reference I just mentioned also addresses the reality of the supposed consensus. Please see the excellent article at http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91

BMAONE23 wrote:
"Question to you...If CO2 levels continue to increase, causing Arctic permafrost melt and subsequent bacterial growth that in turn releases more CH4, and if temps continue to climb in the presance of these increased gasses will you be willing to admit otherwise?"

I object to the premise of your question, it presupposes that CO2 is indeed responsible for Arctic warming. Please note figure 3 in the previously mentioned reference (http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91). There is substantial deviation between measured temperatures and the projections by James Hansen.

My background is in physics, instrumentation, and planetary sciences and I have been carefully following the AGW debate for the past ten years or so. I am not convinced by the evidence presented so far of the AGW hypothesis. I am, however, very impressed with the correlation between solar activity and climate. The solar irradiation changes only slightly with solar activity, about 0.1% or less, but the hypothesis proposed by Henrik Svensmark (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0x72u303vv6713x/ and http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Th ... pd_sim_b_4) describes a plausible means whereby solar activity modulates terrestrial cloudiness and therefore the earth's albedo. We may find out soon the answer since the sun appears to be continuing into a period of low activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/25/e ... #more-7332). If Svensmark is right, we may be entering another minimum of solar activity like the Dalton minimum and we may have a period of cooler climate for some decades.

Best regards, Roy Tucker

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:06 pm**

We will see how things start panning out in July (not because it will be summer and warm) as solar activity should be picking up by then. But, for arguements sake, lets say that Solar activity remains low and CO2 retains its robust climb and the earth shows signs of increased warming like:
Increased polar ice melt off vs last year (or more so even than 2007 record levels)
Increase in speed and frequency of Glacial Recession (I would think that cooling would stabilize or reverse current trends)
Alteration in Arctic Occilation and normal Arctic weather/wind patterns.
Increased Greenland Melt ponding
Decreased Albedo creating
Increase in Pacific Ocean Temperatures (Possible new El Nino)
Increase in Atlantic Temperatures (increase in storm frequency and strength
Increase in Snowfall in Antarctic Interior

How many of these symptoms would alter your arguement?

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:11 pm**

gpobserver wrote:I am mistrustful of scientific consensus. In astronomy the consensus used to be the Ptolemaic theory until the observations of one man, Galileo, demonstrated that Copernicus was correct.

I disagree with that viewpoint for a very simple reason: before Galileo, there was no such thing as a scientific consensus because there was essentially no such thing as science in the modern sense. Before Galileo, the "consensus view" on the structure of the Solar System (or Universe if you prefer; there wasn't much difference) was essentially theological.

The history of modern science is primarily one of where this kind of dogmatic consensus has a hard time surviving. When new ideas come along that challenge old ones, and those ideas prove strong, old theories fall fast.

I have a very high level of trust in the scientific consensus. Nobody can read every paper and understand every nuance of a specialty. I'm a physicist, an astronomer, I have a good background in geology and Earth science, I work with complex computer models, and I've learned quite a lot about climatology. I'm probably better equipped to understand this area than 99.9% of the population. But I am not a practicing climatologist; I do no research in this area. So I trust the experts, because they know more than I do. That doesn't mean I don't remain skeptical, and it doesn't mean I think a consensus guarantees a correct conclusion. It just means I don't have any grounds to strongly doubt that the consensus view is, broadly, probably correct.

In the Soviet Union Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) dominated agriculture from the 1920's until the 1960's. This is an example of what happens when science becomes politicized.

It is a good example of a sort of intellectual failure, but not a good example of what we are seeing now. In the Soviet Union, a scientist had to follow this politicized dogma or risk his career, freedom, or even his life. The closest analogy today would be the sort of abuse of science we saw under the Bush administration. But in that case, you had politicians cherry picking to arrive at their own, unscientific conclusions, to support their political agendas. A very few scientists in public policy positions felt pressure to keep silent. But the vast majority of the scientific community was completely unaffected by this, and the business of real science went on just fine- even subject to the effects of politically directed (or misdirected) public funding.

I think the same is true of the AGW debate. There are substantial financial and career incentives for researchers and politicians to support the AGW hypothesis.

I think you don't understand how science works in the real world. There are almost never incentives to take the consensus viewpoint. Science is competitive, and scientists are largely driven by their desire for prestige- not finances. There is no better way for a scientist to gain prestige in climate science than by demonstrating that some mainstream belief is incorrect. That competition is what drives research. Very, very few climate scientists are in the sort of political positions you refer to.

For example, the personal wealth of Al Gore has increased substantially as a result of his promotion of the AGW narrative...

I don't see the relevance. Gore is not a scientist, he is a science popularizer and a political spokesman for a group that advocates a certain type of public policy based on the scientific evidence. It is a mistake to confound public policy with the actual science.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:18 pm**

(duplicate post deleted)

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:22 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:
gpobserver wrote:BMAONE23 wrote:
"Question to you...If CO2 levels continue to increase, causing Arctic permafrost melt and subsequent bacterial growth that in turn releases more CH4, and if temps continue to climb in the presance of these increased gasses will you be willing to admit otherwise?"

I object to the premise of your question, it presupposes that CO2 is indeed responsible for Arctic warming. Please note figure 3 in the previously mentioned reference (http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91). There is substantial deviation between measured temperatures and the projections by James Hansen.

(SNIP)
Best regards, Roy Tucker

I looked at the referenced chart. I traced a general averaged line in red following the contours. I also drew a Blue line from upper low point in 1960 to the upper low point in 2009. I also drew a green line from upper low point in 1960 to the upper low point in 2008.

The blue line indicates a net change of +.2c from 1960. The Green line indicates a net change of +.6c between 1960 and 2008 with A cold year in 2008-2009 with a net change of -.4c in that year.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:44 pm**

StACase wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:...corporate and populace lusts are in control in China and India as they are in the rest of the world, including U.S. and Canada.
Oh yes, the evil corporations, the evil corporations who produce products and services at a price we can afford. Yes they are the evil ones that are destroying the planet.

"Global Warming" is nothing more than a ruse to destroy the corporations that one brand of politics hates with a passion. That brand of politics also seems to hate ordinary people; their arrogance is on display in the above quote.

Babylon knows no borders or politics but serves the lusts of, yes, 'ordinary people' who consume, consume, consume, consume .. and spend their way into black holes from which most never escape .. all for their souls and planet's destruction.

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:47 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:
How many of these symptoms would alter your arguement?

Plus the people around the world dying of heat exhaustion?

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:56 pm**

aristarchusinexile wrote:

"Plus the people around the world dying of heat exhaustion?"

I guess this is a suggestion that I am a horrible, awful, nasty person for not believing the AGW hypothesis since I obviously care nothing about human suffering. According to http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7262/670, there are substantially more deaths due to cold weather than to hot weather. I could similarly assert that people who don't want the world to warm up don't care about human suffering. With all due respect, it's silly to try to convince someone of the truth or falsity of a hypothesis with a totally unrelated bit of emotionalism. Can we try to be rational and stick to logic, reason, and history to discuss this topic? Thank you.

- Roy Tucker

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:04 pm**

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I think you don't understand how science works in the real world. There are almost never incentives to take the consensus viewpoint. Science is competitive, and scientists are largely driven by their desire for prestige- not finances. There is no better way for a scientist to gain prestige in climate science than by demonstrating that some mainstream belief is incorrect. That competition is what drives research. Very, very few climate scientists are in the sort of political positions you refer to."

Ok, so I'm pathetically ignorant of the realities of the world. Thank you, Sir. I guess at this point we can part company and agree to disagree. My own experiences in the field of science are substantially at variance with your own assessment.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:17 am**

BMAONE23 wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:
gpobserver wrote:BMAONE23 wrote:
"Question to you...If CO2 levels continue to increase, causing Arctic permafrost melt and subsequent bacterial growth that in turn releases more CH4, and if temps continue to climb in the presance of these increased gasses will you be willing to admit otherwise?"

I object to the premise of your question, it presupposes that CO2 is indeed responsible for Arctic warming. Please note figure 3 in the previously mentioned reference (http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91). There is substantial deviation between measured temperatures and the projections by James Hansen.

(SNIP)
Best regards, Roy Tucker
I looked at the referenced chart. I traced a general averaged line in red following the contours. I also drew a Blue line from upper low point in 1960 to the upper low point in 2009. I also drew a green line from upper low point in 1960 to the upper low point in 2008.
The blue line indicates a net change of +.2c from 1960. The Green line indicates a net change of +.6c between 1960 and 2008 with A cold year in 2008-2009 with a net change of -.4c in that year.

Nice graph. Watch your back though. The global warming alarmist are fanatic and will not listen to logic or real data. Save your breath and wax your skis.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:42 pm**

To be sure, there are legitimate scientists and researchers who ascribe to the theory. And I’m sure that climatologists are both stunned and excited that their discipline has actually become sexy and high-profile over the last 10 years. But no one bothers to point out that there are just as many legitimate scientists and researchers who think global warming is a bunch of hooey.

I often rail about the undue influence that money, business, and politics have on our health and our healthcare system. Other scientific disciplines are identical to medicine in this way—they don’t operate in a vacuum.

Until this global warming hubbub, climatology wasn’t considered a life-or-death issue the way medicine is. And just like doctors who are influenced by money from Big Pharma, so too are earth scientists and climatologists swayed by grant money and funded research.

Since global warming has become a divisive political minefield, there’s big-time grant and research money being tossed about to help politicians (regardless of their stance on the issue) make their points. Which is why you need to take the entire global warming argument with a gigantic grain of salt.

An easier way to say it is this: the same climatologists and researchers who advocate global warming are often being paid to study it. If they want to continue their research––and they do––on the dime of government and private groups, you bet they’re going to find evidence of global warming. Just like the cigarette company scientists for years always seemed to conclude that their employers weren’t making anyone sick. It’s amazing what scientists will conclude when there’s money involved.

http://www.DouglassReport.com

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming

Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming