| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is neither a pro-Global warming or an anti-global warming post..simply an observation in regards to some of the numbers and statements that I've seen tossed around over the past two pages of this thread.
I think it IS interesting that when many people toss around the 97% in the CONTEXT they are expressing it in, it's basically a flat out lie, at least how the media has presented it.
AS my spouse states, in statistics, you can twist them to say almost anything you want, but the facts will remain the same.
I think there is an agreement that there is climate change (well, at least a majority, as opposed to 32%)...but the thing is, the POLITICIANS and media want sensationalism.
97% makes far greater sensationalism then 97% of 32% of those who did studies that have a hypothesis that global warming is based off of human created conditions.
OF course, the thing about these conditions is that not all of that 32% actually say humans are even the main culprit. What many state is that it is more than likely that some portion or part of Global warming is probably caused by human activities (and some less than that, in which they simply state that it is most likely Global Warming is occurring)...some more or less specific on what those activities are.
Is there climate change...absolutely.
However, a LOT of what you see in the thread, and what you see people proclaiming isn't exactly what science states.
There's a BIG difference between saying there is definitely man-made global warming that is an immediate threat, and stating there is climate change with some ideas of what that may entail (and what the repercussions of it may be).
Just like there's a BIG difference in stating 97% of scientists agree in Man Made Global Warming (not something any scientist would be caught dead stating at this point...though many media pundits and politicians would be) and that 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Furthermore, that 32% is NOT stating that a majority of climate change is actually man made global warming or that global warming is even mostly caused by man made actions. Much of it has the idea that some of the cause may be man-made, but many of the studies don't attribute it to actually being a majority of man-made activities, merely a contributor. Hence, there are many misleading statements made in regards to this statistic.
Presenting such things and stating they are FACTS is even more misleading, and really only a media sensationalistic presentation from what I can see.
Is climate change occurring, I think that's something most would agree upon among scientists who study such things. Is it having an impact that needs to be dealt with...that probably is something that is of grave concern to many...especially those who are dealing with those direct items.
However, to try to shoehorn the debate by stating things are facts or absolutes...I think that's something most scientists try to shy away from since last centuries Newtonian Physics can become yesteryears Einsteinium physics which can become today's modern physics.
Science isn't always absolutes, but it is the study of the world and universe around us. Studying it and the effects is science.
Trying to convince others that this science supports your position...that's more politics than anything else.
I see a LOT of politics in this thread.
That's because it's an inherently political problem. It requires action from not just one nation, but many, there's nothing that isn't political about that. Besides, this thread is about the conspiracy theories about global warming, which is also political, not least because many American politicians are adherents of them, or at least claim to be.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, none of that is true.
The Cook study showed that 97% of papers which address the issue indicate that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming.
Yes, if you add in papers on climate change which don't address the issue at all then it is equally 'accurate' to say that 32% of ALL climate change papers indicate that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming. However, that doesn't make the original statement any less true. Indeed, it is the second statement which is clearly intended to mislead. OF COURSE the percentage declines if you include data not addressing the specific topic. Add in all papers on atmospheric science and the percentage that say humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming may only be 1%. Add in all papers on any aspect of environmental science whatsoever and those citing human influence on global warming (or virtually any other narrow topic) would round to 0%.
None of that changes the accuracy of the original statement... it just introduces more and more data irrelevant to the question. That's not politics or even science... it's basic math and reasoning.
The 97% figure is NOT some inflated or misrepresented value. It is an accurate description of the state of the scientific consensus... which has been found by multiple studies using different methodologies. Doesn't matter if you count papers (e.g. Oreskes 2004), count views expressed by scientists publishing in the field (e.g. Andregg 2010), or ask the climate scientists themselves (e.g. Doran 2009)... the answer is always 97% or HIGHER (e.g. studies looking only at the past few years find >99%).
Most of the climate scientists who ever disputed that humans are driving global warming have admitted they were wrong, died off, or long since retired. There are only a handful (e.g. Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Soon) still active in the field... and all of them have impressive records of being spectacularly wrong.
I think there is an agreement that there is climate change (well, at least a majority, as opposed to 32%)...but the thing is, the POLITICIANS and media want sensationalism.97% makes far greater sensationalism then 97% of 32% of those who did studies that have a hypothesis that global warming is based off of human created conditions.
Well, that's not the only spot that 97% number comes from. It occurs in a lot of contexts with a lot of context specific meanings.
For example, here are a few passages from the relevant Wikipedia article.
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.
So in this case, 97% of respondents surveyed agreed that warming is occurring, and 84% agreed that it's human-caused. That's a substantially higher fraction than the 32% of studies that explicitly discussed the issue (which, in turn, is not the same as your presumably unintentional misrepresentation as "have a hypothesis that global warming is based off of human created conditions.")
Another:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
In other words, 97% of the top scientists believe in AGW.
Another:
75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
75/77 is 97.40%.
Another:
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring.
So the number 97% comes up a lot.
You have to go way back to find any data that contradicts the statement that "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe (personally) that humanity is a major cause of global warming." So arguing about whether it's exactly 97% or "merely" 84% is something of an irrelevant distraction, especially since the newer numbers keep getting higher and higher as more and more data comes in.
GreyWolfLord, none of that is true.
The Cook study showed that 97% of papers which address the issue indicate that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming.
Yes, if you add in papers on climate change which don't address the issue at all then it is equally 'accurate' to say that 32% of ALL climate change papers indicate that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming. However, that doesn't make the original statement any less true. Indeed, it is the second statement which is clearly intended to mislead. OF COURSE the percentage declines if you include data not addressing the specific topic. Add in all papers on atmospheric science and the percentage that say humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming may only be 1%. Add in all papers on any aspect of environmental science whatsoever and those citing human influence on global warming (or virtually any other narrow topic) would round to 0%.
And if that isn't enough to get the rounding percentage down to 0%, just include articles from math journals. If you're willing to inflate the denominator with enough irrelevancy, of course the fraction will (misleadingly) go down.
The 97% figure is NOT some inflated or misrepresented value. It is an accurate description of the state of the scientific consensus... which has been found by multiple studies using different methodologies.
Absolutely.
Joynt Jezebel, yes and no. In the sense that we can't predict the exact weather conditions a month from now we also can't predict what they will be in 20 years. However, just as we CAN predict that Winter will be colder than Summer, have less sunlight, result in plants dying, et cetera... so too can we predict the general impacts of climate change.
Basically, we know enough to be certain (barring magical unknown negative feedbacks miraculously appearing any day now but not for the past 150+ years) that continuation on our current path will get very bad by 2100. The fact that we've been seeing impacts predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 for decades now should make it clear that this isn't some sort of pseudo-random guesswork. The "pattern" of warming especially is very clear... faster warming at night, in Winter, nearer the poles, at higher altitudes, et cetera. Basically, it will warm everywhere, but faster at most of the times and places which are currently relatively cold. Greenhouse gases decrease the rate at which heat escapes the atmosphere (by absorbing and re-emitting it)... thus having a greater impact where temperatures get cold than where they are already always warm. The primary positive feedbacks are also amplified in cold times/places. The only real exception to that is central Antarctica... albedo (i.e. ice melting away to expose rock to sunlight) and water vapor feedbacks won't kick in there for a long time because the ice cap is just so large and thick.
CB, I think that the pattern of future climate change is less certain than you do.
However, you are obviously well informed and well versed in science. So you could well be right.
Your posts about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which everyone with any kind of education knows human action is increasing and simultaneously reducing the mass of plants on Earth, reducing the amount of CO2 photosynthesised into O2, are inarguable.
But the so called skeptics are totally unaffected by this. Doubtless physicists are falsifying results like climate scientists. All part of a massive conspiracy to pauperize those poor little oil companies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Case in point of the politics.
I made a neutral post...of which only someone who wants to have a political point would want to attack me or the items in there.
Interesting some of the responses.
I will say, what annoys my spouse and relatives in the field far more than anything else is the fake science that people spout off. The Science they participate in is actually really solid and I find it hard that anyone would actually have problems with the science or what they have shown with it.
What annoys them are outrageous claims people make that just about anyone can poke a hole in.
Take this 97%, I explained it already. The source of the number and what it represents is pretty simple (32.6% with .7% as the disagrement would be 97%, or more accurately 97.85%). I have no qualms with something like that. However, with twisting of stats it becomes something it is not in the hands of politicians. This is about an opinion of someone...anything that deals with opinions instead of science...if someone states it's at 97% be very WARY of it.
It's like an election, any election that states 97% of people voted for this one guy...something is instantly suspected of being illegally manipulated. A vast majority can be believeable (even perhaps up to the 80th percentiles at times), but something that major...always be wary of it.
In addition, as I said, NO SCIENTIST (at least one that is worth their PhD, which should be all of them...but you never know) would EVER state something of such a soft nature (physics, math...those are hard. Biology, geology, earth science, atmospheric sciences...those are softer...opinions...those are EXCESSIVELY SOFT IN NATURE) near anything close to being as such an absolute (like 97%). You have a bigger deviation just in what is happening in regards to climate change (much less it's causes) among scientists than 97% in any case. Heck, you can't even get 97% of physicists to agree upon some facets of gravity...and if you can't get them to completely agree upon something that is in such a hard science as physics is in regards to that...well...saying that in regards to an OPINION in regards to climate change...I think you should be able to figure that one out.
Anyways, I digress...I shouldn't make statements in political threads most likely...so it's my fault. It's just ironic how some people will instantly attack any person or item no matter how matter of fact or point blank simply because it doesn't support a political view enough (and as I said, mine was neither pro nor anti...just pointing things out)...but then, that's how these political threads go...and I should know that by now.
So, in accordance with the entirely political slant that's going on in this thread...here's mine...
Politicians should actually listen to the scientists instead of making stuff up and twisting statistics and facts to the point that it makes scientists look bad and everyone ignores the real science because the fake science being posted by the media and politicians is so obviously flawed that anyone with half a mind could poke holes in it.
IF Al Gore had actually USED the science from the studies that he quoted (he uses it but instead of using the actual results of the study, he tries to use the extremes of the suggestions of the studies which are even on the edge of the realm of possibilities in the studies themselves), he might not be mocked by many people for his 2014 predictions.
There are some pretty majorly bad things happening this very day, but you know what, no one knows about them (did you know how many animals have gone extinct in the last 6 months?). Why...because they are too busy mocking Al Gore and others for saying Manhattan would be underwater right now instead of dealing with the REAL problems that are occurring this very instant and are having some very REAL effects on nature and the world. These are problems addressed in many of the same papers and predicted as what and how they would happen (did you know the California drought was predicted YEARS ago?)...but everyone ignored them because...the politicians stole the show and pointed everyone towards extremes for sensationalism instead of the reality of what was going to happen.
And THAT is annoying.
Politically speaking, things like some of the statements in this thread can be annoying simply because they try to make some sensationalistic claim instead of dealing with the REAL effects that climate change is causing today, right now, this instant. These are not hypotheticals, but very real things which are ignored (well, to a degree, things like the California drought are not so much ignored, as dealt with very badly) in favor of sensationalism on a massive scale.
When scientist actually have solutions to some of these problems (for example, water management of the California drought) it is seen as unfavorable and unimplemented because it is not politically feasible to implement (mostly for economic reasons it seems in CA).
Even worse, there are already predictions that are probably going to occur in the near future that are also being ignored, simply because one would rather try to convince people that 97% of all scientist agree on something (which they don't) rather than the details on which 75% of scientist in a specific arena of study (the Southwestern US and weather conditions) may have raised an alarm about (or concern...though not necessarily a total agreement) but are being ignored totally and completely.
And the worst part, the worst enemies of scientist typically seem to be those who claim to be their best allies. With allies like these (who distract everyone from the real problem by saying things like the glaciers are all going to melt by 2015 and flood the entire coast of every nation in the world immediately or other such stuff), who needs any enemies or opponents? The enemies and opponents are actually MORE on the side of the scientist half the time than the so called allies!
Al Gore, for all his save the environment, takes a ton of plane trips, travels in a caravan of SUV's, and thinks that by paying someone else to plant trees, he makes up for that in his own estimation (and according his own science, his planting trees actually does NOT make up for all the pollution he's put into the air...just as an aside).
Allies like that...it's no wonder people think Climate Change is simply not occurring. They are the worst enemies to Climate Change science and trying to present the facts, theories, and ideas of it. (As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Al Gore these days...though I used to be a major fan, though that may have been influenced because I thought one of his daughters was excessively attractive at the time).
That's my political statement, which I suppose is favorable to just about no one in the thread....
I'll but out of the thread now as my politics on the matter are unfavorable I think.
One last thing that should point out the politics vs. the scientists from what I've seen in regards to the field.
You know the difference between politicians and scientists these days.
Scientists study climate change.
Politicians try to convince you that all scientists are stating Global Warming as a fact.
There's a reason that Global Warming is an antiquated term right now...and the instant you see someone talking about Global Warming (except in very specific circumstances which actually no one has mentioned in this thread) as opposed to Climate Change...realize that you are talking about politics instead of science.
Just as a heads up...and in some ways is one of the most ironic (or perhaps appropriate and totally in line with how the topic is being discussed) things to point out considering how strongly some are arguing a certain thing which is included in the terminology above.
That's because it's an inherently political problem. It requires action from not just one nation, but many, there's nothing that isn't political about that. Besides, this thread is about the conspiracy theories about global warming, which is also political, not least because many American politicians are adherents of them, or at least claim to be.Nations themselves are not the problem. The real stickler about climate change, is that the solutions involved with the problem require real lifestyle and infrastructure changes. Which means that real money by vested interests is on the line. If we substantially cut down on fossil fuel issues, then you're talking about major hits on wallets like people such as the Koch Brothers.
The Koch Brothers of course aren't taking such challenges lying down. In addition to hiring scientists willing to exchange truth for the all mighty dollar, they actively lobby to have major solar and other renewable energy efforts suppressed whereevery they may take root. Several state legislatures have already passed laws blocking cities from making solar and wind initiatives, that legislation was essentially written up by Koch-paid lobbyists.
The conspiracy does exist, but it's not where the AGW crowd keeps pointng.
Koch brothers are small change compared to some political groups and governments. Do you really blame the Koch brothers for what's currently happening in California and how they are dealing with it?
The power struggles in regards to the economic forces are FAR more powerful and stronger than anything anyone could dream up in regards to the Koch Brothers.
California is a VERY liberal state comparatively speaking to the rest of the US. You would think they would be one of the first to have accepted warning in regards to their environment, and yet...even now they are not actually acting upon the suggestions of science and instead trying to sort it out via the options of politics.
California could have even more serious problems in two years and be in truly deep problems by 2020 if things do not change...but by the time they act it may already be too late.
Depending on the snowfall that occurs, perhaps two years time will have a severe wakeup call (or not...to their detriment).
Even if snowfall happens on a massive scale and California recovers some, there are multiple problems in the field of water that is happening there, and if predictions are correct, California could have some major problems in the next few decades.
However, the solutions that would solve this are all economically "unfeasible" for many in California right now...and that's in a very liberal place where I don't think the Koch Brothers have as much political pull as say the wine growers or the Date Farmers or the Olive groves or the almond planters...etc...etc...etc.
Edit: saw your last reply...
You are right however, unfortunately, money IS somewhat of a shield. Those with money will be far less affected than by those who are not.
Much worse though, is stuff like what is occurring in California should be extremely serious business and taken extremely seriously. However, you know what people are concerned about in regards to the effects of climate change...
Read this thread...
You'll find very little mention of what is actually currently happening in regards to climate change that are very real and occurring this very instant. Instead you'll find the usual political dialogue which ignores the present in favor of unfulfilled political predictions and arguments about a future which is not actually at the forefront of most of the discussions that scientists are currently contemplating in regards to the EFFECTS of climate change currently being seen.
This is why you'll have people pushing for higher gas prices before there is a valid substitute instead of pushing to make options that we already have more accessible (as can be seen in many of these types of discussions, I am a HUGE proponent of solar power and believe it to be a valid option if it were as widespread in usage as other forms of electrical generation). The scientists are simply ignored in favor of politics.
If the science were listened to (for example, everyone has solar panels and solar energy is pushed, even in the automotive...imagine electric cars that also had solar panels built in to recharge as they go...how much more effective that might be, especially if they use the solar paint that is much lighter then the full on panels)...a LOT of the energy problems we have (Such as over usage of gasoline according to some) would simply disappear (why use gasoline when you can move your car around for free and recharge for free?).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Koch brothers are small change compared to some political groups and governments.
I... wait... what?
and that's in a very liberal place where I don't think the Koch Brothers have as much political pull as say the wine growers or the Date Farmers or the Olive groves or the almond planters...etc...etc...etc.
The entire wine, beer, and liquor industry only spends about $25 million annually on lobbying activities. A single Koch brothers organization - Americans for Prosperity - is responsible for $36 million in political spending during 2012. Heck, just *this year*, the Koch's are responsible for $7 million in personal donations to political projects.
The problems in California with the drought really haven't been stopped by the Koch brothers, nor most of the REAL items that are hitting barriers today in Climate Change and the effects that are occurring. Instead you have government and economic groups.
I use California because it's a prime example. Every scientific method of dealing with the upcoming drought (That's actually been predicted by science and is actually right on schedule right now) has been stopped...NOT by the Koch brothers or any of their lobbies, but the state interests in regards to agriculture and city development. San Francisco has had several scientific proposals (and you have Berkeley and the labs right there even!!!!) over the years, almost none of which have even been given the time of day.
It has nothing to do with the Koch brothers in these instances, and everything to do with how the government thinks it will affect their state economics. Anything that may disrupt the agricultural output or the residiential consumption of water has basically been ignored.
The most powerful lobbies in this that I see are more the agricultural bunch and city councils that try to reject any ideas that they see as an current economic drain. They never look at the picture down the road nor the predictions. In many instances these are democrats that are in control, and very liberal. These are not groups that are overwhelmingly pro Koch brothers, but they ARE heavily invested by things such as other groups in that state.
The same applies to other items. There are some problems in regards to wildlife and climate in the Northwest, something that not only doesn't really come up on the Koch Brothers radars, but that really aren't known to most of the public (Because they'd rather hear about Global Warming in the future than what Climate change is doing to their environment directly to them today). Once again, you have highly liberal and democratic governments that do NOTHING...why...because they feel it costs too much money and it works adversely against their state economics (at least now, in the future, it may actually hurt them far more than if they had spent the money now).
People don't realize just how much damage distractions that point to the extremes of possibilities in regards to Climate Change have damaged the tackling current problems that are happening today.
Another part of the problem is that many of these things may seem small today (take a look at California water problems several years ago compared to what it looks like today, even with snowfalls on a massive scale, there are many of those reservoirs that I suspect will NEVER recover), but will become larger and larger as time passes and harder and harder to fix.
Because they seem so minute currently, in many instances the interests of the local state economies or city economies seem more important and those groups get far more attention than any environmental concerns (especially when discussing animal life and the effects on it, which is the main area which I am exposed to due to relatives and such).
I think if you ask a very liberal democrat who has a larger impact on their decisions, the Koch brothers, or a group of citizens they represent who state will lose half their profits over the next ten years (and that of course will affect who they support and vote for) if they take a certain action, you'll probably find that most politicians are going to be more concerned with the activities in their districts due to self interest than a small portion of the Koch's political funds.
IMO of course.
|
Iron Truth. The other day when I posted about the Sun going into a cooling cycle. I got the Russian scientist confused with John Casey the author of Dark Winter. My bad. I heard him tonight on the radio he gave a fairly well researched presentation. I am not going to try to quote from it as I really can't recall much from it right now as I am on some good pain killers right now for my torn rotator cuff. Am going to pick up Dark winter soon and read it as I have six weeks of time off from work after Tuesday.
Do you know any good books on global warming? I really liked the link from the team at Berkley IWould like to read thier research it sounded real good.
Do you know of any studies on the in crease of C02 n the last 50 years? I am always open to learning new things.
Would the more left leaning posters join with me in trying to stop deforestiztion in the 3rd world countries. I think if the 1st world countries set up a fund to pay the developing countries to plant trees it would help the global warming problem as much as trying to limit co2 out put in the1st world countries. Could I get see comments on this?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't believe in global warming because too many scientists believe in global warming."
Hmm... Haven't seen that one before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Case in point of the politics.
I made a neutral post...
You did no such thing.
Take this 97%, I explained it already. The source of the number and what it represents is pretty simple (32.6% with .7% as the disagrement would be 97%, or more accurately 97.85%). I have no qualms with something like that. However, with twisting of stats it becomes something it is not in the hands of politicians. This is about an opinion of someone...anything that deals with opinions instead of science...if someone states it's at 97% be very WARY of it.
That's errant nonsense. First, as I pointed out, there is no single source for that number. It comes up a lot. Second, while wariness and skepticism are generally good things, in matters scientific near-unanimity is fairly common simply because everyone's playing from the same set of data.
How many geologists believe that the earth's core is made of nickel-iron?
How many biologists believe that humans descended from ancestral primates?
How many astrophysicists believe that the universe is expanding?
How many chemists believe that water is a compound, not an element?
In addition, as I said, NO SCIENTIST (at least one that is worth their PhD, which should be all of them...but you never know) would EVER state something of such a soft nature (physics, math...those are hard. Biology, geology, earth science, atmospheric sciences...those are softer...opinions...those are EXCESSIVELY SOFT IN NATURE) near anything close to being as such an absolute (like 97%). You have a bigger deviation just in what is happening in regards to climate change (much less it's causes) among scientists than 97% in any case.
This, again, is nonsensical.
I'll but out of the thread now as my politics on the matter are unfavorable I think.
It's not your politics that are the problem. It's your pseudoscience.
|
|
I think if the 1st world countries set up a fund to pay the developing countries to plant trees it would help the global warming problem as much as trying to limit co2 out put in the1st world countries. Could I get see comments on this?
Just about the only major success at the Bonn climate talks last month was a deal similar to the outline you describe... cash incentives from 1st world countries for 3rd world countries to stop deforestation.
In the scientific literature this is called 'land use change'. Basically, because trees are large and live for a long time they 'lock up' more carbon per surface area than grass for grazing animals or various crops... which themselves might release greenhouse gases. Other 'land use' changes can impact albedo, release previously stored carbon directly, or otherwise contribute to global warming.
That being said, most estimates of total land use impact on global warming (from everything, not just deforestation) put it between 15 and 20 percent. So no, stopping deforestation would not do "as much" as limiting CO2 output... not even one quarter as much. However, given that land use is the single biggest contributor after CO2 emissions, and deforestation the single biggest factor in land use impacts, it is still an important issue to address... especially as there are plenty of reasons to preserve the forests which have nothing to do with global warming.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, I suppose it depends on what you think the 'claim' is. The most widely reported of the various '97%' studies, and the one you were apparently referring to with the mis-representative 32% bit, is the Cook 2013 study. The correct way to describe the 97%, in reference to that study is, '97% of peer reviewed research on climate change which addresses the issue indicates that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming'.
Now, this might be described by various media personalities as '97% of climate scientists' (which happens to be accurate even though it isn't what that study looked at) or even '97% of scientists' (which IS inaccurate). However, I don't think that is nefarious 'political' deception... so much as lack of understanding of the exact details. Even the least accurate common description, '97% of scientists', isn't the huge misrepresentation you claim... Doran 2009 found that when all scientists (i.e. in ANY field) were considered, the percentage agreeing that humans are driving global warming was still 82%. Yep, that's 15% lower than the consensus among scientists actually studying the issue, but still a clear consensus. Hardly a massive conspiracy of deception and 'flat out lying'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As increased CO2 causes warming there will be less snow and ice... which means more sunlight hitting darker land and ocean rather than being reflected off of white snow and ice. That means more sunlight absorbed... and thus even MORE heat than just from the CO2 increase alone. This is called a 'positive feedback'... the...
The problem with climate is that there are a very large number of feedback loops, some positive (like the albedo one pointed out in your quote above) and some negative. For example:
That's just off the top of my head. The climate models are controversial because of the number of these feedback loops and their complexity in interacting with one another. It's not safe (nor accurate) to point out an example of a positive feedback loop and imply that all the loops are positive, however.
|
|
That's just off the top of my head. The climate models are controversial because of the number of these feedback loops and their complexity in interacting with one another. It's not safe (nor accurate) to point out an example of a positive feedback loop and imply that all the loops are positive, however.
Sure, there are tons of positive and negative feedbacks.
However, this is really another 'we do not know everything' argument... 'we don't know the precise net feedback for clouds! Therefore it might be a really huge negative feedback and stop global warming from being significant!'. Unfortunately, while the first part of that is true, the second is not. We still haven't nailed down whether cloud feedbacks are net negative or positive, but we know enough to verify that they are TINY. Indeed, cloud cover hasn't really changed all that much... because clouds need more than just water vapor to form. They also need airborne particulates for the water to condense around (cloud condensation nuclei, as they are called).
People like to dispute climate models, but they're largely irrelevant to our understanding of global warming in general. The underlying physics, current observations, and study of past climate events are all giving us the same results as the computer models. From these sources we have good estimates of all these different feedback effects... not precise values, but enough to know that the only ones which will have a major impact on total warming are albedo and water vapor.
Coral isn't the primary CO2 sequestration method of the ocean, it's plankton and algae. They absorb CO2 as they grow, then they die, their bodies sink to the ocean floor and stay there (this process made the white cliffs of Dover BTW). This can be disrupted though, because it relies on thermohaline circulation, which is the primary vertical circulation in the ocean.
Most thermohaline circulation happens around Antarctica where the water cools and then sinks along the continental slope to the ocean floor. If Antarctica were to be surrounded by a layer of fresh, or at least lower salinity, water the process would be disrupted as the surface water wouldn't be dense enough to sink to the ocean floor. The water at the ocean floor is important because it's there that it absorbs things like nitrates and phosphates which are important for plant growth, such as plankton and algae.
The primary aspect that makes this disruptive is speed. If ice melts slowly and joins the ocean it has time to take up salt while remaining a thin layer and allowing for thermohaline circulation to happen directly underneath. The problem is when the layer of this fresher water gets too thick that it disrupts the circulation.
Indeed. I'd be quick to point out that, taking into account all of the loops we're aware of, including the seemingly contradictory ones (clouds, reefs -- kudos to thejeff for correctly pointing out the latter), and taking into account which ones are major and which are more minor (as Irontruth explained just above), leads to the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.
I point out the number and complexity of the loops not to try and give the deniers an "out," but to close one off. Every time someone ignores any part of the science to try and drive home the point that climate forcing is real, they give ammunition to the nay-sayers.
Yeah, real life systems can be complicated. I'd like to believe that they way to convince people, ultimately, is to help them make sense of the complicated parts -- not to dumb it down and try and sweep the complexities under the rug.
|
|
Kirth, anything short of repeating the contents of the IPCC AR5 is perforce going to involve rather a lot of 'dumbing down' and 'sweeping complexities under the rug'. Heck, even that (massive) report is just a simplified summary of the current state of climate knowledge.
Thus, I think a case can be made for just hitting the highlights and covering details if people ask. Sure, a 'skeptic' might claim that is 'misleading'... but they wouldn't be able to back it up (e.g. by showing how some detail changed the overall picture) and it's not like they weren't constructing 'ammunition' out of thin air before this either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we're nine pages in to a thread on the Paizo forums.
And yet no one has so far chimed in to say
Climate change is only an issue for a spineless GM who lets the players take control of the table! In the REAL world, the GM can just house rule to eliminated all the causes of climate change. If you're too lazy to fix it yourself, then stop complaining and go play an MMO!
Maybe the forums really are improving....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Its complicated, therefore we can't know anything" is the deniers argument. "Its complicated, but here's why we're pretty sure why the planet is going to warm up, on average, even if a few locations are going to get colder" is reality.
Of course, if you predict a colder london, then the skeptics are shouting. "LONDON WILL GET COLDER! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD"
"Its complicated, therefore we can't know anything" is the deniers argument. "Its complicated, but here's why we're pretty sure why the planet is going to warm up, on average, even if a few locations are going to get colder" is reality.
Of course, if you predict a colder london, then the skeptics are shouting. "LONDON WILL GET COLDER! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD"
Kinda like how they say "its snowing more so global warming is a fraud"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a favorite down here in Texas. Any day the temperature falls below 60oF, I know with near-certainty that 99% of everyone I meet will say, apropos to nothing, "How's that for GLOBAL WARMING?!"
D
Do you know of any studies on the in crease of C02 n the last 50 years? I am always open to learning new things.
Maybe if you dig around a bit, you'll find the entire trend by looking into the data at the Mauna Loa Observatory. They've been tracking CO2 for quite a while as I recall. I found this with a quick Google search:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Case in point of the politics.
I made a neutral post...of which only someone who wants to have a political point would want to attack me or the items in there.
I think it IS interesting that when many people toss around the 97% in the CONTEXT they are expressing it in, it's basically a flat out lie, at least how the media has presented it.
Saying "This is a neutral post, but you're frakkin' liars" doesn't make it a neutral post, nor does people protesting your claims "attack" you.
Iron Truth. The other day when I posted about the Sun going into a cooling cycle. I got the Russian scientist confused with John Casey the author of Dark Winter. My bad. I heard him tonight on the radio he gave a fairly well researched presentation. I am not going to try to quote from it as I really can't recall much from it right now as I am on some good pain killers right now for my torn rotator cuff. Am going to pick up Dark winter soon and read it as I have six weeks of time off from work after Tuesday.
Do you know any good books on global warming? I really liked the link from the team at Berkley IWould like to read thier research it sounded real good.
Do you know of any studies on the in crease of C02 n the last 50 years? I am always open to learning new things.
Would the more left leaning posters join with me in trying to stop deforestiztion in the 3rd world countries. I think if the 1st world countries set up a fund to pay the developing countries to plant trees it would help the global warming problem as much as trying to limit co2 out put in the1st world countries. Could I get see comments on this?
The Sun is of course a major factor and while it does account for shifts in temperature in moderate increments, like say 5 years apart, it doesn't account for the entirety of the warming observed so far. In addition, the Sun is in a cooler period right now, but temperatures are at best leveling off or still increasing. If temperatures continue to rise for the next 10 years, even if they climb less quickly, it means that the Sun is not the principle cause.
One thing to note is that solar output is so stable that it's considered to be nearly constant. It varies by about 0.00074% over it's 22 year cycle. It's so stable it's called the Solar Constant Sun spots seem to vary more widely, becoming extremely rare during it's "down" side of the cycle.
Another factor is global dimming. From the 1950's to the 1990's a 4% decrease in sunlight reaching the Earth's surface was observed. Global dimming actually cools the Earth. The Clean Air Act came in the 70's and significantly reduced the sulfate pollutants which are most responsible for obscuring the atmosphere and after some lag time, the result is that more sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface.
Fixing one type of pollution may have exacerbated the problem caused by other types.
There were theories about air craft contrails and their effect on temperature, but they were all theories, until 9/11/2001. The three days after 9/11 all planes were grounded, providing a data source. Those three days they estimate that temperatures were about 1.8 degrees F higher during the daytime, offset by a slightly smaller nighttime decrease.
In the area of mitigation, cloud seeding and or intentional release of particulates could be used to cool the Earth, but of course could carry all sorts of side effects that might be bad.
Kinda like how they say "its snowing more so global warming is a fraud""Its complicated, therefore we can't know anything" is the deniers argument. "Its complicated, but here's why we're pretty sure why the planet is going to warm up, on average, even if a few locations are going to get colder" is reality.
Of course, if you predict a colder london, then the skeptics are shouting. "LONDON WILL GET COLDER! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD"
Yes, but one is citing a paper! Which adds credibility right?
Or its head desk inducing inconsistency to cite the paper as X will happen but not Y will happen...
GreyWolfLord, I suppose it depends on what you think the 'claim' is. The most widely reported of the various '97%' studies, and the one you were apparently referring to with the mis-representative 32% bit, is the Cook 2013 study. The correct way to describe the 97%, in reference to that study is, '97% of peer reviewed research on climate change which addresses the issue indicates that humans are responsible for more than 50% of observed global warming'.
Now, this might be described by various media personalities as '97% of climate scientists' (which happens to be accurate even though it isn't what that study looked at) or even '97% of scientists' (which IS inaccurate). However, I don't think that is nefarious 'political' deception... so much as lack of understanding of the exact details. Even the least accurate common description, '97% of scientists', isn't the huge misrepresentation you claim... Doran 2009 found that when all scientists (i.e. in ANY field) were considered, the percentage agreeing that humans are driving global warming was still 82%. Yep, that's 15% lower than the consensus among scientists actually studying the issue, but still a clear consensus. Hardly a massive conspiracy of deception and 'flat out lying'.
LET ME BE CLEAR
(besides the fact that the one person with direct access to the climatologists is the one being misbelieved by you and others...ironically)...First, NO scientist in the field refers to anything as Global Warming except in specific circumstances these days. ANYONE referring to it has a political agenda in mind.
Point blank.
There are MANY papers that refer to Climate change, which is DIFFERENT than the entire globe of the Earth (inclusive of core on out warming up) warming up.
Your problem isn't really with me, but with scientists.
Not that anyone who really is a scientist or concerned with the science seems to be reading the thread. As I said, the politicians and politics are VERY strong in this thread. The first dead give away is WHAT people are referring to and how they are referring to it.
ONE REASON it's blatant no scientist would be at the 97% to begin with is because Global Warming isn't the science, it's about the climate and the changes in it.
They refer to the atmosphere and climate or environmental conditions that may warm (or cool, depending on the paper) and the causes, but saying they are agreeing or discussing global warming is misleading at best, and flat out lying at worst (probably because there is a REASON it is called climate change and NOT Global Warming these days...as I briefly explained above).
I really shouldn't get into these political threads. I suppose my mistake was thinking people might actually want to discuss Climate Change (as per the title), but I was mistaken.
I think that's the biggest problem though (as if it wasn't obvious). The biggest enemy to changing the approach to Climate Change that's been occurring is NOT those opposed to Global Warming (a political term, if I hadn't made that clear) but those who think they are helping by giving out false items (such as that 97% of scientists and such) who direct everyone attention to items that are the extremes rather than what is actually happening right here and right now and what needs to be done. These so called Global Warming supporters (who of course are the ones behind the pushing of the faulty 97% claim...not that the 97% is wrong [it is correct I believe used in the RIGHT context, which almost no one is using in this thread] are the biggest enemies to Climate Change and those working in the science of it than anyone else.
Much of what the normal Climate Change addresses are blatantly OBVIOUS things to everyone. If these so called "Supporters" (who I think are actually wolf's in sheeps clothing as they actually are the ones who cause the most problems from what I've seen and experienced in the relatives jobs who actually work the field) who post facts that are easily poked holes in by anyone who wants.
Whereas most of the real Climate change uses REAL facts and real items that are blatant and anyone can see them (For example, right now, how many would really deny that California is having some water problems, or that there just happens to be smog and other effects that you can visibly see over some cities). I think when the REAL science is seen you don't have skeptics and people who don't believe in the science.
It's those who are playing politics and posting false ideas which are the problem. The biggest being it distracts attention away from the real problems that are actually happening and going to happen (instead of the extremes) and even the liberals who think they believe in Climate change don't do anything to affect Climate Change in ways they could immediately (California and much of the Northwest being a blatant obvious point in this case currently). Second, they don't post the realities of it and instead post things that people can't really see, can't believe, and can easily poke holes in.
There are some basics that are essential in the field of which I may think over 80% of the scientists studying it agree upon (like Climate Change), but when someone states something like Global Warming (how many times do I have to point out that the actual idea of a Global Warming is not really supported, because that's talking about the Globe rather than the atmosphere, environment, or climate in general...though there is SOME support of it on that broad of a degree) and that most believe in it...
I think it's pretty insulting to those who actually are in the field and utilizing it on a daily basis.
As far as it being a neutral post, I was posting for clarity. It could be taken as saying everyone in the thread was lying if they wished.
However, it wasn't actually designed in any way, except pointing out how the field actually works.
Seeing I live with someone who is avidly supportive of Climate Change science as they have to base calculations and other items in their field of work off of it...I'd say as far as Climate Change I'm probably a bigger believer and far more supportive of it than most in this thread, and perhaps have done far more than anyone in this thread to help in that field (due to my spouse, I actually work in the boring legal field currently...it's my spouse that drags me in to the entire Conservation type movements).
But of course, as I should know, once a thread turns political it doesn't matter WHAT ANY ONE IN THE ACTUAL FIELD MAY THINK OR SAY...all that matters is that you win the argument...
As that's what politicians really want to do.
And as I'm horribly bad in politics (which is probably why I stay with what I do instead of trying to run for any office), this is probably not my type of thread.
However, if anyone ever wants to really talk about the science (it appears some may actually want to tell the truth) I think I'd be happy to discuss that. I can even occasionally ask my relatives for clarification and information from them. Not that anyone would actually be interested (plus, my spouse is currently at another one of these conferences currently, I opted to stay away this time...you can't imagine how boring some of those things are at times...at least for one who is not actively employed to be studying or doing things with it).
Scientists have begun to be able to directly measure how much heat that CO2 in the atmosphere is blocking from escaping.
Of interest, I heard some stuff recently in regards to the Sun and Warming.
Some (meaning some, not all or a majority) have hypothesized that it is only a matter of time till the Earth is more like Venus. The feeling is that by studying Venus and what happened there, they can see what may occur to Earth in the future.
It's not an if, but when. Of course, if it's hastened by man-made activities it probably will be sooner than later (speaking on a universal level...which means for us it's still a VERY VERY LONG TIME AWAY till Earth is like Venus).
It's a fascinating thought though, that as the Earth builds up levels of CO2 (and water vapor is supposed to be major contributor as well), it eventually will have Venus like conditions with a crushing atmosphere (I think it was 4000lbs/ square inch).
Of course it's completely theoretical and hypothetical right now, but it was an interesting idea.
|
|
First, NO scientist in the field refers to anything as Global Warming except in specific circumstances these days. ANYONE referring to it has a political agenda in mind.
You are spouting complete nonsense.
There has not been any significant shift in nomenclature. The terms "global warming" and "climate change" have both been commonly used to describe the changes induced by increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels for decades now, and both continue to be used by scientists working in the field.
'Climate change' is not a new term. Probably the landmark study in the field, was Plass' 1956, 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'. The 'IPCC' is, of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... and founded in 1988.
'Global warming' has not been 'abandoned' by scientists. James Hansen released a paper titled, "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous" THIS WEEK.
"Climate change" is now used more frequently than "global warming", but both remain common. Some make a distinction that 'global warming' is causing 'climate change' beyond just the warming itself (e.g. changes in precipitation, atmospheric and ocean circulation, et cetra), but in most cases the two terms are used interchangeably.
Google books search for Climate Change vs Global Warming.
As I said, the politicians and politics are VERY strong in this thread.
For the record, the only known example of a "political" effort to change the terminology is precisely for the change you are advocating;
It's not an if, but when. Of course, if it's hastened by man-made activities it probably will be sooner than later (speaking on a universal level...which means for us it's still a VERY VERY LONG TIME AWAY till Earth is like Venus).
Actually, I'm not aware of any climate scientists who believe that human activities can get us to a "runaway greenhouse effect" like Venus. There just aren't enough known fossil fuel resources available to raise the temperature high enough to start boiling off the oceans. Maybe if the most wildly optimistic estimates of methane hydrates were accurate and we eventually developed a way to access those as a major fuel source there might be enough... but we'd kill off the human race, and most other life on the planet, long before we could get there. Of course, if we somehow made it bad enough that we couldn't survive on this planet then we would perforce stop burning fossil fuels... and eventually the atmospheric carbon dioxide level would go back down.
So, nope... we don't really have to worry about becoming 'like Venus' until the Sun starts winding down it's life cycle... at least another half billion years.
First, NO scientist in the field refers to anything as Global Warming except in specific circumstances these days. ANYONE referring to it has a political agenda in mind.
This is absolutely false, and has already been explained earlier in this same thread.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that anyone who really is a scientist or concerned with the science seems to be reading the thread.
Ahem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that anyone who really is a scientist or concerned with the science seems to be reading the thread.Ahem. ** spoiler omitted **
Indeed...I am a professional paleobiologist with a PhD in Ecology. I don't think agree with anything GreyWolfLord has said in this thread.
I was searching to see if Al Gore was recorded actually saying anything people accuse him of and I ran across this video which while it seems to start out as a political attack on Al Gore has some interesting science after you get past it about how global warming (or climate change if the previous word bothers you) is happening on all the planets... wait... did climate scientists factor this interplanetary increase into their models? Did someone debunk it? It seems to attribute most of the change to natural solar activity. I went to my usual debunking site and they just say solar radiation has remained constant in the last 32 years. So have they figured out what IS causing the other planets to warm up if it isn't solar radiation? It seems they would need this information to build an accurate climate model.
Anyway some of you seem to know more than I do about this stuff, so what news have you heard?
I was searching to see if Al Gore was recorded actually saying anything people accuse him of and I ran across this video which while it seems to start out as a political attack on Al Gore has some interesting science after you get past it about how global warming (or climate change if the previous word bothers you) is happening on all the planets... wait... did climate scientists factor this interplanetary increase into their models? Did someone debunk it? It seems to attribute most of the change to natural solar activity. I went to my usual debunking site and they just say solar radiation has remained constant in the last 32 years. So have they figured out what IS causing the other planets to warm up if it isn't solar radiation? It seems they would need this information to build an accurate climate model.
Anyway some of you seem to know more than I do about this stuff, so what news have you heard?
NAFTA is a complete non sequitur.
... solar activity caused atlantis?
White ovals therefore jupiter warming?
Other planets doing things we haven't seen before is because we haven't had the technology to look. Its like picking up the worlds first telescope and saying "Oh my god why did all these stars appears!!"
Yes. oddly enough photography got better from probes we launched in 1960 and now. That doesn't mean these features just appeared.
Yes. Pluto has reaally long seasons. Its years are 250 of our years long. If its had a steady increase for as long as we've been seeing it thats not unusual.
He's mocking the concept that warmer oceans mean... warmer bottoms of the oceans too
That this is the best that the deniers can do is the best argument against deniers.
Indeed...I am a professional paleobiologist with a PhD in Ecology. I don't think agree with anything GreyWolfLord has said in this thread.Not that anyone who really is a scientist or concerned with the science seems to be reading the thread.Ahem. ** spoiler omitted **
ahem...Politician here.
a very interesting read this thread has been. and unlike other politicians, i am not going to be voicing an opinion on this. I havent had the time yet to really research this subject to its fullest extent. So i keep an open mind until then.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...about how global warming (or climate change if the previous word bothers you) is happening on all the planets... wait... did climate scientists factor this interplanetary increase into their models? Did someone debunk it?
Yes, I've heard this before and it virtually 'debunks' itself. It's pre-bunked.
The same people who insist that we can't accurately measure global temperature changes on THIS planet are simultaneously insisting that there is absolute proof of solar driven global warming on all the other planets? You know, the ones where we don't have thousands of detailed temperature monitoring stations? Why is this even taken seriously?
It's nonsense. They made it up. Mars appears to have warmed briefly due to a decrease in dust storms (i.e. more sunlight getting through)... then it cooled down again. We don't have data on even a single full 'orbital year' for Neptune yet (each is 164 Earth years long)... thus the minor warming we think has happened there is the equivalent of saying the planet is undergoing global warming because it got warmer in 'Summer'. Jupiter looks like it is warming near the equator and cooling near the poles... due to changes in atmospheric circulation (related to some of its large storms merging). Uranus appears to be cooling (though the data is sparse and the reasons uncertain). There's no evidence of any significant temperature trend for Mercury, Venus, and Saturn... not to mention dozens of moons (including Earth's own) where we haven't detected this fictional 'solar system wide warming'.
In short, none of the other planets appears to be experiencing the kind of ongoing planet-wide warming that Earth is, and none of the temporary/regional warming which HAS been detected is related to changes in solar output. Which, as you already mentioned, has declined slightly. It's pure bunk. One of a hundred completely fraudulent arguments advanced by so called 'skeptics'... who yet somehow never seem to be phased or even consider that their position might be wrong (the literal opposite of skepticism) when one bit of 'evidence' after another implodes in the face of even casual scrutiny.
BTW, one of the impressive things about climate models... if you replace the details for Earth with the atmosphere, distance from the Sun, albedo, and other aspects of the various planets... the climate models then yield results matching the actual climate of each planet. Truly amazing coincidence if climate science were even remotely as uncertain as 'skeptics' claim.
Great, you guys win the thread.
Of course, the politicians won the thread in California and ignored the scientists, and they still have the water problems, and just about every other problem caused by Climate Change...
Because winning the thread...doesn't mean anything when you ignore the scientists.
See, you can disagree with the scientists because they don't agree with your politics...
But in the real world, all that means is that you win the political wordy things...and get everyone killed.
I suppose this thread is a prime example now of some who will play politics but will NEVER listen to the scientists in the field or doing anything.
It IS funny, those who state they disagree with everything stated, did disagree directly with at least half a dozen scientists directly involved with the research publishing of articles involved with Climate Change...
Relatives are currently involved with meteorology and others with doctorates in Climatology (not that this matters to someone with a degree in....what is that...someone who studies the ancient fossils from millions of years ago and modern ecology to figure out evolution because obviously evolution for dinosaurs is keeping one truly involved with modern day climatology) as well as those in the actual environmental field (and of interest, two of them were the ones who developed two of the most utilized methods of cleaning up hydrocarbons out of groundwater, as well as the method to actually clean up certain pesticides (similar to DDT in damage and prior to that, the impossibilities of getting rid of it...not that someone with a Doctorate in any other science would even think such stuff was important...).
Which really makes it...a political thing where you win the thread, but ignore the science.
Congratulations, once again in winning the thread. You've proven that dinosaur (or other animal) evolutionists and anyone with a Doctorate that's not in Climatology (perhaps that includes dentists and physicans also?)know more about Climatology than meteorologists, Climatologists, Environmental Engineers (though, in reality these guys DO use hydro geologists and geologists quite a bit[so see note below Kirth]), Conservation Biologists (who have similar concerns in climate change and animal life), and everyone else studying Climate Change.
And I think, I have answered the question of the OP.
Conspiracy theories surrounding Human influenced climate change, what's up with that?
This question has now been answered.
you win the thread.
Why don't people listen to the Climatologists...Well, that was answered too, because others know better then they do...
Once again, congratulations, you guys win the thread.
If and when you guys want to discuss the science, alert me so I can actually come in when the political speeches are over.
Though I will freely admit, I am NOT a scientist (or at least have a doctorate in a Science like Biology and such, I just have a spouse and relatives that have been involved with it and drag me along on their trips to conferences, or monitoring stations or even better [or worse], drilling holes in the earth and taking water/soil samples...manual labor which they don't even pay me for...thinking it's just all good fun for the family or something...)
PS:
I was searching to see if Al Gore was recorded actually saying anything people accuse him of and I ran across this video which while it seems to start out as a political attack on Al Gore has some interesting science after you get past it about how global warming (or climate change if the previous word bothers you) is happening on all the planets... wait... did climate scientists factor this interplanetary increase into their models? Did someone debunk it? It seems to attribute most of the change to natural solar activity. I went to my usual debunking site and they just say solar radiation has remained constant in the last 32 years. So have they figured out what IS causing the other planets to warm up if it isn't solar radiation? It seems they would need this information to build an accurate climate model.
Anyway some of you seem to know more than I do about this stuff, so what news have you heard?
IF you see this Aranna, it IS true that there are a minority that have looked at other planets heating up. The reason for this is actually addressed by many other studies (most of the time by those who do not even look at the other planets).
According to science, the sun goes through cycles. At times these cycles can affect the warming or cooling cycles of the Earth, or at least that's the current hypothesis.
A majority of studies that deal with an actual cooling of the either the Earth's atmosphere, or the Earth's Crust deal with what factor the sun may be contributing to this.
In regards to the actual science of Climate Change as it's been introduced to me by others in this regards, this solar effect is already taken into account in most studies regarding what is happening to the environment around us.
However, some ascribe greater or lesser effects of the Solar cycle to the effects on the Earth. For the most part, they do not say the entirety of Climate Change is due to the Sun (though a few studies come close...interestly enough most of those ALSO attribute at least a small portion to humanity's effect on the environment as well).
That in mind, those who spread it to other planets typically are among those who attribute the Solar cycle to be the item having the greatest impact on the Earth's Climate Changes. They logically assume that this would also apply to the other planets.
They measure this (and I know they measure it, but I'm a little shaky on how it works as I'm more familiar with the Animal migrations and local regional impacts than interplanetary stuff) I believe by using waves of light that they measure from the planet itself. Utilizing this and perhaps other methods they theoretically get how warm or hot a planet (or stars or other things further out) are.
However, it is FAR harder to measure other planet's temperatures and so most star FAR away from this type of thing.
Many more ascribe the Solar cycles as a factor in Climate Change, but they also include many other items, of which is humanity's effect on Climate Change (some more, some less).
That's basically a long way of saying, yes, there are those who think that and study that (the planets heating up), but it's far from being any sort of huge number of scientists from what I've seen.
Anyways, I'm out of the thread...but thought I'd answer this for you in a far more specific manner on what it is about, what the theory is, and how it might be applied to Climate Science. Of other interest, the measuring of planetary and star heat is actually more of interest to the Astrophysicist and others in that field I imagine. You could probably find a LOT more of their research into that category.
Once again, congratulations to those who won this thread.
It's high time I am out of this thread anyways, political threads don't really help bring out the best in me. I do have a relative dealing with the VERY REAL problem of the growing water scarcity out west next week, hanging out with them would probably be far better for my character.
Plus, I really don't have anything against Paleobiologist or Hydrogeologists. I don't think I have that many problems with what Kirth has said in the thread from what I've remember reading over from him, AND as I briefly mentioned above, several of my relatives DO heavily rely on some of the research of geologists and hydro geologists. It seems he actually did want to discuss the science of some of the stuff, but I got too caught up in the political attacks against what I posted as a very neutral post. I think what really startled me was trying to clarify some stuff in a neutral post, and it was taken politically instead. No taking of sides, no nothing in the post, but then came in attacks anyways. Took me a little by surprise...of course...that's when I realized it really WAS a political thing...with the goal...win the thread!
I suppose that happens to other as well. So apologies to Kirth if he took it the wrong way.
And Congratulations to all those who now have won the thread, though I'm not so certain that really should have been the point of it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.
The trouble is, basic scientific research isn't usually directly profitable to whoever funds it (it is only profitable to the engineer who makes use of the research a couple decades down the road). That's why the pure sciences are more commonly funded by governments (who aren't interested in directly profiting) than by corporations (who are more likely to fund the engineering projects to increase their profits).
Funding for research of new fallacies might need to come from the government. Which, as we all know, would make it socialist propaganda. The Job Creators are perfectly content profiting off of the old fallacies (like 'socialist propaganda'). Sure, maybe they'd like to utilize new fallacies, but only if someone else pays for the development.
We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.
I will take that grant money!