The world has never seen such freezing heat

[Tim T]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Something for everyone to keep in mind about the scientific literature. These papers are in my experience (and I've read hundreds, been a reviewer and published although not about climate change) 100 times drier than the propaganda papers being published by environmentalists (not scientists) and environmental advocacy groups. A peer reviewed scientific paper will point out its own flaws and rarely state definitive conclusions regarding doomsday. The advocacy groups will then string together results, and conclusions from the science papers into a sexy story to promote their agenda be it protecting state wild lands, saving a cute fuzzy animal they like or warning of doomsday climate change. I am wondering what is the IPCC, advocacy or science? It looks like science but it smells like advocacy reminding me of the FED which looks like government but smells like private.

[sunskyfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I understand the skeptisism over the global warming controversy but the idea that even a marginal climate shift can have dramatic effect on human populations and quality of life cannot be ignored. I could care less whether someone's Hummer is the problem or the Sun's output is the problem we have to prepare and deal with the consiquences. Agreed that there is a mix of agenda with science but that is inevitable and does not devalue the science. There is a fine difference between being skeptical and being in denial. I accuse no one here of the latter but due dilliegence is required of the skeptic as much as it is the proponent on such an issue.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

The Global Warming issue really is much more closely aligned with the social sciences than it is to any study of physical science.

This is such arrant tripe I am truly aghast.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Reviewing the Earth's climate history, climate change is quite normal.

There was a time, apparently during the Ice Age, when the Sahara Desert was a grassland and even had trees and rivers which flowed eastward into the Nile.

Considering that most of Africa is now desert or semi-desert, a change in the world's climate just might help mankind by decreasing the extent of desert lands.

A warming of the Earth could increase the size of storms coming off of the seas, and bring much needed rainfall to dry lands. Conversely, a cooling of the Earth could bring a return of the wetter Ice Age conditions in the Sahara.

[c1ue]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Lukester,

I've not commented on your favorite hockey stick diagram because I knew full well it is full of crap.

When the politicians wanted a 2nd opinion after McIntyre and McKitrick questioned the methodology of Mann (Mr. Hockey Stick), the professional statisticians echoed the criticism.

I'm not sure how much more of a smoking gun you want that agendas were interfering with the exploration for the truth.

Have you had enough rope to hang yourself with on this subject?

As for your forcing explanations - once again you'll note what is missing from Gavin Schmidt's little piece: that unless Beer's law is completely invalid, exponential increases in carbon are needed for additional temperature increases due to atmospheric carbon.

This is the (deliberately?) unmentioned hole in the panic monger's arguments. If it will require 10x atmospheric carbon in order to double so far seen temperature increases, man made carbon isn't going to be a factor until well after all the oil is gone.

Then there's the actual amount of temperature increase. Using the IPCC's own 'arguments', working backwards and forwards yields nonsensical temperature numbers.

Again, it is not that these are impossible, it is that they are both inconsistent and improbable. Normally in science, the burden is greater to prove the existence of inconsistent and improbable results.

For some reason Man Made Global Warming has less of a hurdle than cold fusion.

[yernamehear]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Quote:

"Peer reviewed journals are the microphones for the results of scientific inquiry. It is through these results that the foundation and details of our understanding of the physical world around us is advanced. If you choose not to accept the results published by an overwhelming number of scientists, in an overwhelming number of journals, supported by an overwhelming quantity of data, then what source of knowledge do you use to understand the world around you?"

These "microphone", "consensus", "overwhelming" concepts are not science.

You can use Google as well as anybody, I'm sure. You need to do some searching on N-Rays. This phenomenon was in the "consensus" and its support was "overwhelming" using the "microphone" of peer-reviewed journals, including support by Nobel prize winners.

Only one problem. It was wrong.

Good luck on your approach.

[sunskyfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

True ... bot the time it takes to develope top soil is at least centuries ... a lot of people will die.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Quote:

"Peer reviewed journals are the microphones for the results of scientific inquiry. It is through these results that the foundation and details of our understanding of the physical world around us is advanced. If you choose not to accept the results published by an overwhelming number of scientists, in an overwhelming number of journals, supported by an overwhelming quantity of data, then what source of knowledge do you use to understand the world around you?"

These "microphone", "consensus", "overwhelming" concepts are not science.

You can use Google as well as anybody, I'm sure. You need to do some searching on N-Rays. This phenomenon was in the "consensus" and its support was "overwhelming" using the "microphone" of peer-reviewed journals, including support by Nobel prize winners.

Only one problem. It was wrong.

Good luck on your approach.

Thanks for your Google suggestion. I did look it up.
The case you speak of is of: discovery of N rays in 1903 by Rene Blondlot, a professor of physics at the University of Nancy, France.

Some 120 scientists published almost 300 articles on the topic during the years 1903-1906, and the original discoverer himself published 26 articles and a book (Ref. 1) before halting, while one of his colleagues published no fewer than 38 reports in the same three-year period -- all on "rays" which have never since been observed. (Ref. 2) ...

...At the same time there were those who could not reproduce the effects claimed. Such recognized physicists as Rayleigh, Langevin, Rubens, and Drude, for example, reported failure. Indeed, within a month after Blondlot’s first announcement, there appeared the first report of failure...

...The purported finding of a new radiation had, of course, been discussed at meetings of physics societies. There the reaction was almost uniformly one of disbelief, based often on futile attempts made sometimes with specific instructions furnished by Blondlot himself. ...

http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm

You go back more than 100 years to try and prove the process of scientific journal publication doesn't work, and instead you demonstrate it works exactly as designed.

The system worked the way it is supposed to. A scientist publishes a hypothesis, other scientists try and duplicate the original findings (in this case failure to duplicate was found within a month), more scientists publish supporting or nonsupporting data, and eventual a consensus is reached as to whether the data supports or disproves the hypothesis.

In this case there was no overwhelming consensus, in fact there was uniform disbelief at meetings of peers and the hypothesis was disproven within 3 years.

Man made Global warming has been studied for more than 2 decades by hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of scientists producing thousands of publications in scientific journals, there is an overwhelming consensus, and yet not one publication has appeared disproving the concept.

[Judas]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

True ... bot the time it takes to develope top soil is at least centuries ... a lot of people will die.

What bothers me is that man-made CO2-based global warming eats up all the attention, money, and even power. True or false, accurate or mistaken, I care far less about it than more pressing issues.

I wish 1% of the money and political effort put into AGW was put into the collapsing fisheries, or topsoil depletion/degradation, or heavy metal infusions into the environment, or pollinator decline...

The problem is that other issues won't lead to trillions of dollars made in carbon trading or political control of populations, so they get pushed to the side... :mad:

[Starving Steve]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

True ... bot the time it takes to develope top soil is at least centuries ... a lot of people will die.

Rather than for govn'ts to get involved policing and taxing carbon, govn'ts should try to drive-down the cost of living and make life easier for people. In other words, govn'ts should be involved with making cities livable and affordable. Govn'ts should provide for affordable living space, affordable farmland, affordable land in cities.... The rightwingers don't want to hear this, but this is precisely what has to be done.

Govn't should not be forcing people to live below sea level. And govn't should not be forcing people to farm desert lands because there is plenty of arable land for everyone on this planet.

Climate change is quite normal on Earth. Although recent decades have had remarkably little change in climate, it would be prudent now for governments to plan for major changes in climate in future.

Finally, the Earth can not support unlimited population growth. It would be prudent for governments --- including the UN--- to try to teach people to reduce their fertility rate. Negative population growth should be a goal for every country on Earth.

[sunskyfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I agree with both you and Judas. Zero population growth? Hum. We can't get people to give up their guns let along their ability to reproduce. You might have the mother of all second amendment issue there .

[WDCRob]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Again...

There is not a single scientific body IN THE WORLD "of national or international standing" that now disputes the idea that the earth is warming, and that there is a greater than 90% chance it's doing so as a result of human activity.

And that's a consensus statement that dramatically understates the true beliefs of most scientists.

There is a standing invitation for any accredited scientific organization to provide a dissenting opinion with regard to the position above. None have taken it.

[yernamehear]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

As usual, the prose, via 20-20 hindsight makes it all sound very matter of fact. At the time there was vigorous defense of N-rays and very reputable scientists defended their existence. It was very hotly debated in very respected academic departments.

The "process of scientific journal publication" is a part of modern communication of scientific methods. Consensus never has been and never will be proof of any theory. N-Rays are simple to prove or disprove compared to a complex global system: part of the inherent problem of proving or disproving the man-made global warming phenomenon.

The problem isn't so much the "proving or disproving" via some silver bullet article as it is the flimsy models. Anybody with any background in statistics who views the graphical representation of the models can fairly quickly point out the spread in the data. This leads to high uncertainty in the model(s). So, it hard to prove or disprove anything with them.

Another example is cold fusion. It has been around for about 20 years and is a bit more complex than N-rays. There is something interesting about it in that there is a larger, but inconsistent, heat production during the experiment. The inconsistency is an object of the research, which may have commercial application. In addition, the radiation that should be present during the reaction was apparently erroneously measured by the original workers. This work has been going on for 20 years, it is less complex than global warming, and it still is not well understood; at least the excess energy that is sometimes released.

Consistency (precision) in models and results is required for credible scientific results. The global warming workers do not have that, no matter how many of them agree with each other.

The workers also have a conflict of interest: funding. Having spent my share of time in academic/faculty lounges, I can tell you that conflict is very apparent. Trust me that academic science can be a very dirty business.

As another poster said: a good scientist is always trying to prove themselves to be incorrect. Any group of "scientists" that wants to stop debate on any scientific concept debases the discipline.

There are lots of inaccuracies in several of the defenders, e.g. that pressure broadening will complicate the spectral absorption, etc., etc., which is absolutely not true. The number of errors in statements is large.

Unfortunately, the climate scientists haven't enlisted the basic scientists too well yet, in spite of the claim of inter-disciplinary cooperation. There are lots of physicists and chemists who won't touch global warming research with a ten foot pole; unfortunately for obvious reasons.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Show me the temperature data taken at airports which would confirm a warming in the climate, or show me the rise in sea level which would confirm a warming in the climate. That is all that I ask for.

I would even settle for ocean temperature at depth showing sustained warming--- not due to fleeting changes in ocean currents. Show me the rise in deep ocean temps.

I wrote a master's thesis in climatology at the University of Minnesota in the early 70s--- long before anyone even knew what climatology was and long before anyone understood the important issues in climatology.

Finally, there is no dispute about the sea level rising 6 or 7inches in the last 100 years. This confirms a very slight warming which would likely be caused by the Earth still coming out of the Ice Age. Ten thousand years ago, the sea level rose 300 feet in a matter of a few hundred years, so half-a-foot in the last century is relatively trivial.

High sea levels do cause some problems. Flooding during storm surges caused by hurricanes is one very serious problem. A very minor problem caused by rising sea level observed in San Francisco was that the parking lot at Candlestick Park would get submerged during high tide. (This became a minor problem during Giants games, and this annoyance was one of the reasons why the Giants got a new stadium built, PacBell Park.) In the next 100 years, there will likely be a compounding of flooding issues due to additional rise in sea level, so city planners will have to plan for this now.

[yernamehear]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Yes, if taken in a long enough time frame, global warming is definite: since the ice age, it's definite. Caused by humans? Who knows?

Hmmm, the parking lots at Candlestick? I don't remember that. It must have been way over by the bay, but I never parked there. Now I live in Louisiana, about 70 miles inland (Baton Rouge)...dodging hurricanes. Couldn't stand the RE prices in Nor Cal...crazy, but getting less so every day.

This year we're having a cold fall and mild summer. I'll take a little global warming.

The problem with the global warming issue is that it'll lead to even more mis-allocation of capital. I can see giant CO2 sequestration devices on all stacks, so more of the real economy will be driven out of the US.

Note: even though most people think European socialist regs are worse than the US, in some cases the US is worse. We have really arrived at the ugly end of the bureaucracy caused by the policy wonks in the gubmint. The costs are staggering.

CO2 is the perfect pollutant for the greenies. It is the primary product of oxidation of carbon, so it's not a trace contaminant. They can really use it to shut down human progress.

Oh boy.