Two other sources that I would recommend on climate are Nature's Bolg and RealClimate. These are both very informative and more accessible that journal papers.
You have done a nice job of summarising some of the tierd old arguments I was talking about. If you want to accept the propoganda pushed by the Heartland institute you are free to do so but don't expect people to take you any more seriously that a young earth creationist.
"Typically, you don't need to. Anyone can read any study and get a basic idea of how believable the conclusions are. How big is the sample? Is there a control group? Does the data show causation, or only correlation? Is the data self-reported? There are a bunch of simple questions you can ask to gauge how much stock you should put in a study." - That's a valuable skill that you either were taught or stumbled apon, not all people think that way.
"Okay, that I don't understand at all, perhaps somebody can explain this to me, because I think I'm honestly missing something here. As far as I can tell, this whole "cow emission" thing is total bullshit."
It's clever propoganda that goes with the "humans are only responsible for 3% of annual CO2 emmissions". The cow/grass eating, farting, shitting and growing more or less just needs water and sunshine to run in a cycle. But that's a misdirection since the complaint about cows is their contribution to our emmissions via land use problems (eg: Indonesia, Amazon, etc). Our 3% is 2% above what the biosphere can currently absorb as a bi-product of human eating, farting, shitting and growing.
We could shoot all the cows and burry them but then the cure is worse than the deseiase more rational to phase out coal fired plants on a global scale over a 50yr period. We built them all in 50yrs, we know it can be done and so does the coal industry.
Did you know people will pay good money for that kind of expertise in phyco-analyisis? The internet bombards people with bullshit, there are people following around media personalities demanding they discuss "Building 7". Surely this is a sign that Sagan's nightmare of a Demon Haunted World has arrived...
I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. - Demon Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark. - Carl Sagan (1995)
"If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons."
Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally at some point (usually in the land of the lobbyists) a critic turns from a skeptic into a cherry-picking conspiracy nut. This is where "consensus" comes in ("consensus" = "The republic of science"), at some point you have to trust other investigators. So you pick investigators with a good track record to be your surrogates, the most credible are public institutions such as the Royal Academy or NAS or a million other well known acronymns.
If every one of those surrogates agrees on a particular point then it's part of a body of tentative "scientific facts" that are the evidence behind such phrases as "science says light and radio waves are the same thing at different frequencies" or "scientists say a comet or asteroid is the likely cause of the new spot on Jupiter".
A scientific education ( when done properly ) helps you to negotiate this mountain of information more easily and gives you a basic framework to the body of knowledge called science. However self education can also do the job, James Randi is one of my favorite skeptics and his only qualifications are in magic.
I'm not a climatologists but I have followed the topic for nearly three decades. I joined "Al Gore's religion" around 1997 (specifically because of the 1997 IPCC reports). Apparently this makes me harder to convince than NAS who in the late 50's warned the US government that AGW was occuring and have not changed their minds since. My logic goes like this...
Science says:
- The globe is warming.
- Most of the warming is due to CO2 emmissions
- Ignoring the problem is not a rational option.
1. Since 1997 I have not seen any convincing contra-evidence to the consesus. Some of it has made me do a lot of research, most of it has simply been old talking points perpetuated by the Heartland Institute and their affiliates.
2. I cannot name one credible scientific institution that disputes any part of the consesnsus.
3. Dyson is the only credible scientist I can name who still disputes part of the consensus. When he publishes his ideas everyone can check them out.
4. The most interesting critisisms come from members of our own "religion". Especially at my cult leader's web site (realclimate.org), they slay a few psuedo-skeptics for breakfast and then spend the day argueing over real questions such as the "missing methane" that was predicted by climate models.
5. Computer model ensembles for defined senarios give accurate but conservative forecasts. ( I have some expertise in FEA computer simulations and the mathematical training to understand the algorithims )
6. I live in SE Australia that according to geologic evidence and recent experience is highly sensitive to a warming climate (natural or otherwise).
"We're talking about physical science here, not the humanities. Facts are facts"
Physical Fact #1: CO2 is a GHG, it's properties are well known.
Physical Fact #2: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by ~30% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Physical Fact #3: Areosols (sulphur,etc) have a cooling effect.
Physical Fact #4: The warming effect of increased CO2 outweighs the cooling effect of increased areosols in the 20th century.
Emprical fact #1: We can reconstruct the 20th century global climate very accurately with computer models that use nothing but physical facts and laws, it's done in exactly the same manner used to create accurate virtual windtunnels in software.
Mathematical Fact #5: Ignoring the previous 4 physical facts means the 20th century temprature record cannot be explained with known forcings.
Can you now give me some physical facts that might sway you to a different conclusion?
"global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous."
And yet your entire "insightful" post is an emotional argument, accusing others of what you are guilty of is what phycologists call "projection".
Face it you lost the science argument 10yrs ago, sticking you're head up your arse and repeating those ancient talking points at every opportunity puts you in the same boat as the young earth creationists.
"Plus I'd argue the real reason behind the water rationing in capital cities has been a failure of successive governments all over Australia for a generation to plan in advance for population growth by building infrastructure before it's needed."
What kind of "infrastructure" do you suggest? More empty dams won't help, the only option the government had when the water stopped flowing into dams was to panic and commission the giant de-sal plants that will be online in a couple of years. The "drought" keeps up and the same thing will happen to the Medeterraninan, California, the overcrowded banks of the Ganges and Yellow rivers.
The line that died out was the line that had ancestral claims to the throne. The last male passed the right's to the Plantangenets who got their arse kicked in the war of the roses.
"The Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant [wikipedia.org], by comparison, manages 1,096MW output. For ONE of its reactors. Do you seriously think they feel threatened by the solar cells on your roof?"
Sure a stand alone solar farm cannot compete with a reactor but we were not talking about stand alone solar farms. The roofs of Germany pump over a GW of excess back onto the grid. If the electric companies in the US don't feel threatened by every rooftop in the land generating solar power then why do they object to the idea of feedback tarrifs?
"they don't want a bunch of DIY greenies hooking equipment up to the grid incorrectly and causing problems that are difficult to trace and would likely be blamed on them, rather than the homeowner. You screwup the hookups, or the power feed isn't phased correctly, and your whole neighborhood goes dark because of your home improvement project."
No, that's not the reason they object, but it is the reason why why thousands of small-medium businesses have sprung up in Germany installing these things and now employ roughly 250,000 people.
"Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor..."
I found 8 records with my family name and only one of them was an Earl. However I already knew my family name was connected with some powerfull head-kickers who owned large chunks of land and a couple of castles along the welsh border. They were part of the nobility for ~400yrs starting with a donation of 22 viking boats and crew for William the conqueres invasion. The male line died out and the families claims to the throne were passed to the Plantangents.
Earth also orbits on the same plane and so by your own reasoning is "flat" when compared to it's orbit. What point are you trying to make by CHOOSING 2D geometry for the gas giants and 3D for Earth?
The "protection" is related to the strength of the gravitational fields of the gas giants, gravitational fields are 3D and the Earth's field is several hundred times weaker than either of the gas giants.
"I've read lots of spiffy evidence to support climate change but it really itches my gizzard when 'scientists' attribute every tiny aberration in the weather to it."
It's called "speculation" but journalists universally fail to use that word when it's performed by a scientist.
Personally I don't think it's very good speculation in TFA. It's true that above 5km the temprature DROPS because of AGW. However that seems irrelevant since ignoring any AGW change it is still cold enough to freeze any water vapour at that altitude. It would seem that to increase the occurence of noctilucent clouds the amount of water would also need to increase, previous speculation for this hypothetical increase has involved rocket plumes.
Slashdot Mirror
Two other sources that I would recommend on climate are Nature's Bolg and RealClimate. These are both very informative and more accessible that journal papers.
You have done a nice job of summarising some of the tierd old arguments I was talking about. If you want to accept the propoganda pushed by the Heartland institute you are free to do so but don't expect people to take you any more seriously that a young earth creationist.
Fuck off and do your own research.
Well at least I cleared something up for someone :)
The drop in albedo in the late 90's was due to the areosols from Mt Pinatobo settling out of the atmosphere and going back to the pre-eruption values.
My standard starting point is with the IPCC reports.
" how can this matter possibly be discussed if any disagreement is dismissed this way without regard to the substance of the disagreement?"
Any chance you can show me the "substance of the disagreement"?
"Second, there are many publishing climate scientists who take issue with AGW and the findings and methods of the IPCC."
Can you name one who is not connected with the lobbyists at Heartland Institute?
"Typically, you don't need to. Anyone can read any study and get a basic idea of how believable the conclusions are. How big is the sample? Is there a control group? Does the data show causation, or only correlation? Is the data self-reported? There are a bunch of simple questions you can ask to gauge how much stock you should put in a study." - That's a valuable skill that you either were taught or stumbled apon, not all people think that way.
"Okay, that I don't understand at all, perhaps somebody can explain this to me, because I think I'm honestly missing something here. As far as I can tell, this whole "cow emission" thing is total bullshit."
It's clever propoganda that goes with the "humans are only responsible for 3% of annual CO2 emmissions". The cow/grass eating, farting, shitting and growing more or less just needs water and sunshine to run in a cycle. But that's a misdirection since the complaint about cows is their contribution to our emmissions via land use problems (eg: Indonesia, Amazon, etc). Our 3% is 2% above what the biosphere can currently absorb as a bi-product of human eating, farting, shitting and growing.
We could shoot all the cows and burry them but then the cure is worse than the deseiase more rational to phase out coal fired plants on a global scale over a 50yr period. We built them all in 50yrs, we know it can be done and so does the coal industry.
Did you know people will pay good money for that kind of expertise in phyco-analyisis? The internet bombards people with bullshit, there are people following around media personalities demanding they discuss "Building 7". Surely this is a sign that Sagan's nightmare of a Demon Haunted World has arrived...
I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. - Demon Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark. - Carl Sagan (1995)
"If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons."
Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally at some point (usually in the land of the lobbyists) a critic turns from a skeptic into a cherry-picking conspiracy nut. This is where "consensus" comes in ("consensus" = "The republic of science"), at some point you have to trust other investigators. So you pick investigators with a good track record to be your surrogates, the most credible are public institutions such as the Royal Academy or NAS or a million other well known acronymns.
If every one of those surrogates agrees on a particular point then it's part of a body of tentative "scientific facts" that are the evidence behind such phrases as "science says light and radio waves are the same thing at different frequencies" or "scientists say a comet or asteroid is the likely cause of the new spot on Jupiter".
A scientific education ( when done properly ) helps you to negotiate this mountain of information more easily and gives you a basic framework to the body of knowledge called science. However self education can also do the job, James Randi is one of my favorite skeptics and his only qualifications are in magic.
I'm not a climatologists but I have followed the topic for nearly three decades. I joined "Al Gore's religion" around 1997 (specifically because of the 1997 IPCC reports). Apparently this makes me harder to convince than NAS who in the late 50's warned the US government that AGW was occuring and have not changed their minds since. My logic goes like this...
Science says:
- The globe is warming.
- Most of the warming is due to CO2 emmissions
- Ignoring the problem is not a rational option.
1. Since 1997 I have not seen any convincing contra-evidence to the consesus. Some of it has made me do a lot of research, most of it has simply been old talking points perpetuated by the Heartland Institute and their affiliates.
2. I cannot name one credible scientific institution that disputes any part of the consesnsus.
3. Dyson is the only credible scientist I can name who still disputes part of the consensus. When he publishes his ideas everyone can check them out.
4. The most interesting critisisms come from members of our own "religion". Especially at my cult leader's web site (realclimate.org), they slay a few psuedo-skeptics for breakfast and then spend the day argueing over real questions such as the "missing methane" that was predicted by climate models.
5. Computer model ensembles for defined senarios give accurate but conservative forecasts. ( I have some expertise in FEA computer simulations and the mathematical training to understand the algorithims )
6. I live in SE Australia that according to geologic evidence and recent experience is highly sensitive to a warming climate (natural or otherwise).
7. The fucking North Pole is melting.
*Disclaimer: not "you" personally.
"We're talking about physical science here, not the humanities. Facts are facts"
Physical Fact #1: CO2 is a GHG, it's properties are well known.
Physical Fact #2: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by ~30% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Physical Fact #3: Areosols (sulphur,etc) have a cooling effect.
Physical Fact #4: The warming effect of increased CO2 outweighs the cooling effect of increased areosols in the 20th century.
Emprical fact #1: We can reconstruct the 20th century global climate very accurately with computer models that use nothing but physical facts and laws, it's done in exactly the same manner used to create accurate virtual windtunnels in software.
Mathematical Fact #5: Ignoring the previous 4 physical facts means the 20th century temprature record cannot be explained with known forcings.
Can you now give me some physical facts that might sway you to a different conclusion?
"global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous."
And yet your entire "insightful" post is an emotional argument, accusing others of what you are guilty of is what phycologists call "projection".
Face it you lost the science argument 10yrs ago, sticking you're head up your arse and repeating those ancient talking points at every opportunity puts you in the same boat as the young earth creationists.
You're wasting your talent, you should be writing neocon comic books.
"Glaciers are not permanent structures. So what?"
Neither are humans, particularly when they have no fresh water.
Land use is definitely the major problem, I see AGW as the proverbial straw that broke the farmers back.
"Plus I'd argue the real reason behind the water rationing in capital cities has been a failure of successive governments all over Australia for a generation to plan in advance for population growth by building infrastructure before it's needed."
What kind of "infrastructure" do you suggest? More empty dams won't help, the only option the government had when the water stopped flowing into dams was to panic and commission the giant de-sal plants that will be online in a couple of years. The "drought" keeps up and the same thing will happen to the Medeterraninan, California, the overcrowded banks of the Ganges and Yellow rivers.
The line that died out was the line that had ancestral claims to the throne. The last male passed the right's to the Plantangenets who got their arse kicked in the war of the roses.
"The Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant [wikipedia.org], by comparison, manages 1,096MW output. For ONE of its reactors. Do you seriously think they feel threatened by the solar cells on your roof?"
Sure a stand alone solar farm cannot compete with a reactor but we were not talking about stand alone solar farms. The roofs of Germany pump over a GW of excess back onto the grid. If the electric companies in the US don't feel threatened by every rooftop in the land generating solar power then why do they object to the idea of feedback tarrifs?
"they don't want a bunch of DIY greenies hooking equipment up to the grid incorrectly and causing problems that are difficult to trace and would likely be blamed on them, rather than the homeowner. You screwup the hookups, or the power feed isn't phased correctly, and your whole neighborhood goes dark because of your home improvement project."
No, that's not the reason they object, but it is the reason why why thousands of small-medium businesses have sprung up in Germany installing these things and now employ roughly 250,000 people.
"Don't hold your hopes out if you were dreaming to find your ancestor..."
I found 8 records with my family name and only one of them was an Earl. However I already knew my family name was connected with some powerfull head-kickers who owned large chunks of land and a couple of castles along the welsh border. They were part of the nobility for ~400yrs starting with a donation of 22 viking boats and crew for William the conqueres invasion. The male line died out and the families claims to the throne were passed to the Plantangents.
Earth also orbits on the same plane and so by your own reasoning is "flat" when compared to it's orbit. What point are you trying to make by CHOOSING 2D geometry for the gas giants and 3D for Earth?
The "protection" is related to the strength of the gravitational fields of the gas giants, gravitational fields are 3D and the Earth's field is several hundred times weaker than either of the gas giants.
Jupiter and Saturn are (nearly) flat?
"However, as long as there's a way to extract money from people by preaching AGW"
How much has it cost you personally?
"A warmer climate brings bigger harvests, providing more food to feed the legions"
Here in Australia the warmer climate has forced us into water rationing and cut our harvest in half compared to pre-1995 harvests.
"or we simply didnt notice them before"
Yeah, nobody bothered looking at the night sky before electric light was invented.
"I've read lots of spiffy evidence to support climate change but it really itches my gizzard when 'scientists' attribute every tiny aberration in the weather to it."
It's called "speculation" but journalists universally fail to use that word when it's performed by a scientist.
Personally I don't think it's very good speculation in TFA. It's true that above 5km the temprature DROPS because of AGW. However that seems irrelevant since ignoring any AGW change it is still cold enough to freeze any water vapour at that altitude. It would seem that to increase the occurence of noctilucent clouds the amount of water would also need to increase, previous speculation for this hypothetical increase has involved rocket plumes.
"It reminds me of a problem my mum told me about in the art world"
Well you've convinced me, everyone knows a mum trumps an expert.
Australia has had off-peak rates at night for decades, most people use it for their hot-water service.