The southern hemisphere of Mars is where most of the CO2 resides and it was moving into its summer in 2002, the date on the report that gets circulated by so-called "skeptics". The Martian "year" is 687 days, so we only have about 3 Martian years' worth of data. Hardly enough to make any claims (or counter-claims) of "Martian warming".
As a member of the "Man has [little] effect" crowd, I'd rather see everyone focus on issues that we actually have, rather than fabricating new ones.
So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly, GW Bush, and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?
most certainly including those with an agenda to "bring America down"
Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?
It's clear to me that *both sides* are guilty of twisting the facts and exaggerating the consequences of action/inaction.
It's clear to me that *one side* is horrendously guilty of twisting the facts, and that occasionally media types (who are hardly on the other side) are guilty of playing chicken little. However, if you actually RTFJs, you'll find the side that does not tend to twist the facts nor exaggerate the consequences. (I'm talking about the science, not the literal politics. Gripe about Kyoto to your hearts content, but don't paint scientists as pawns.)
Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.
I kept looking and looking. Finally, I had to do a search. I was sure it was going to be in the first couple of posts. Well, at least someone finally did it.:)
That means those of us on Eastern Standard Time have already experienced Doomsday. (Psst, Central folk, his name is..., nah, let them experience it, too.)
Everyone has an agenda, a personal stake in being right, in winning.
Absolutely, and there actually is some merit in this. (If we scientists didn't have a personal stake in being right, then we'd give up to easily on theories after experiencing setbacks.) That's why it's also very interesting to note when a bunch of scientists who used to claim A, now claim ~A. I'm not suggesting this in lieu of actually thinking for one's self, mind you, just as a useful filter. (After all, we can't all investigate all science news.) Of course, as with all anecdotal evidence, no one scientist switching sides is all that newsworthy. And, some scientists switch sides without really letting anyone know. (As I suspect is the case with Pat Michaels - read what he's saying these days.)
It's amazing how many people see that "scientists" say that global warming is a hoax and then don't stop to think about why all of these scientists are being paid by fossil-fuel companies or why many of them have degrees in things like mining - totally unrelated to climatology.
Personally, I am a scientist, so I'm in a good position to judge the validity of junkscience (not valid - also supports tobacco, btw) vs. the validity of realclimate (valid). (I hope you're sufficiently hypnotized by me.) Seriously, I'm amazed by anyone who actually cites junkscience as if it weren't junk science.
On the other hand, if you don't know anything about science, your best option is to look at the credentials of those speaking, and at what they're actually saying. You'll find that most (all?) "scientists" who speak "against global warming" either aren't climatologists or aren't really speaking against global warming (anymore).
And I was taught that electricity took the shortest path in my highschool physics class. Several of us argued with the teacher and said that electricity took the path of least resistance, but the teacher pointed to the textbook, and that settled it.
Don't confuse highschool science with actual science. I taught highschool science for two years, and for the second year, I actually did not have them use the textbook as it had way too many factual errors. Instead we used the Cartoon Guide to Physics. (I recommened they buy it, and there were enough after that to share.) No errors in that book, and much easier to read. Also, it covered all of the topics in the thicker book plus a few additional ones.
Your teacher probably read the National Geographic or Newsweek article and decided that she needed to "educate" her class. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately misguided. However, even during that time period, climatology had already developed their theories that predicted global warming.
Don't you know they've actually dug up ancient stones with imprints of this language as it existed thousands of years ago? That is clear evidence that it existed.
However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans.
Just to be clear, there are rabid Republicans who also classify it as a documentary. My Dad comes to mind. Also, although I know he might not "technically" be Republican, O'Reilly is definitely rabid, and he has now come around.
You know... a more interesting question I think is why is it that everyone here has bought into this story as if this guy is the best case that was put before the school board?
You do realize that the article you linked also mentioned Frosty.
A question I have is, why did the Washington Times not mention Frosty's other "scientific" theories? Did it really think them unimportant? Or does it have its own bias?
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion?
...
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion.
My Dad (a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in '00 and '04, and was also rather neutral on global warming) saw Al Gore's movie. He said "I still don't like Al Gore, but I'm convinced that global warming is a real problem." If you have not yet seen the movie, I strongly recommend it.
There are scientists who disagree and claim that this 'consensus' group has not proven that CO2 is the cause of our recent warming trend. I have look at the evidence, and I agree with these scientists. The correlation has not been proven to be causation.
There are scientists who make the claim that there are good reasons to question the temperature trend data that underlies the global warming hypothesis. I have read their arguments, read the counter-arguments, and find myself agreeing that there are good reasons to question the data.
How many of these "scientists" are climatologists (or at least in a related science) and not, say, into mining? Can you name one? If you go with Lindzen or Michaels, I'll have to ask for you an actual quote, because, as far as I can tell, they no longer disagree with this "consensus".
There are scientists make the point that climate is inherently non-linear, and thus not amenable to computer modeling.
I model the brain. It might surprise you to find out that it is also inherently non-linear. If it were linear, it wouldn't really have to be modeled by a computer. However, if you don't trust the models, that's fine. The models only help nail down some of the details. (Well, for very loose definitions of "nail" and "details", granted.) Climatologists were warning about global warming as early as the 60s, when computers were about as powerful as your watch.
Also, are you seriously claiming that the people who are making these arguments were paid scientific shills for the tobacco industry in the 70s?
I thought this was common knowledge. (There are others, as well.) Sure, not all of them were paid scientific shills for the tobacco industry, but to the best of my knowledge all of them are being paid by fossil-fuel companies now.
'Consensus' has nothing whatsoever to do with science. The fact that thousands of experts, or the majority of experts agree on one thing should play zero role in whether or not you agree as well. There are just too many examples in the past where such consensus was wrong. Helio-centrism, and continental drift come to mind as good examples of theories that were once opposed by the vast majority of scientists.
So, I guess one has no idea whether or not to believe in General Relativity until one studies Riemannian Tensors, launches a few satellites to gather data, and closely monitors the precession of Mercury's perihelion, huh? Do you believe that General Relativity is a valid theory? (Not the end all, be all, but the best we've got?) How did you come to that conclusion?
Sure, it's great to study non-consensus science. But for theories outside of your field, the safest course of action is to trust the majority. As you've pointed out, if conflicting theories hold weight, they eventually do convince the majority of their merit.
Second, there are many distinguished scientists who doubt the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Yesterday's National Post in Toronto had an article about an Oxford professor, reknowned for his studies of solar activity, who believes our current warming is driven by intense sunspot activity, and that we will experience cooling when this activity dies down. He has at least as much data to support his hypothesis as the man-made GW activists do.
Unfortunately, that article is a little out of date. We just passed a solar minimum with respect to sunspots (the primary cycle is an 11 year cycle, and all 10 of the hottest (globally speaking) years on record have happened in the last 10 years), and we have not experienced cooling.
As for Occam's Razor, I like Einstein's version: "Everything should be made as simple as possible and no simpler." Sure, it's not a literal translation, but I think it captures the essence.
As for global cooling, it was the popular media who were responsible for that myth, just like the summer of the shark. See Real Climate's article on it.
That said, one is well advised - whether it is the hottest day (or even year) on record or the coldest - to not take a single data point as proof or disproof. What makes the global warming theories so compelling is that they were advanced during the time that the popular media was going hysterical about global cooling. It's not exactly a new theory. It's just that normal people are just now beginning to see some of its effects - and, of course, blame random weather on it as well.
However, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching Newton's theory of Gravity unless we also teach Einstein's? (Or, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching the Schwarzschild metric without teaching one of the, um, Hocking metrics?)
Your concern about the timespans is duly noted and oft repeated. However, if you do a comprehensive study of global warming as reported in climatology journals you'll find:
Some scientists are only confident about data from the last 400 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
Other scientists are only confident about data from the last 1000-2000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
Yet other scientists are confident about data from the last 800,000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
Most scientists (I think) believe we have good enough data going back a billion years (more than 1,000 times that last number) to say that it was in fact hotter on Earth at some point during the last billion years. Of course, humans weren't around then.
Note that none of these scientists are contradicting each other. And with regards to the last point there are two things to keep in mind:
Humans weren't around then.
It most likely didn't heat up as quickly (although I'm not sure the data is granular enough to know for sure).
Of course, if you read the article that was posted here, the person in question thinks the Earth is less than 14,000 years old, so...
Yep, and if he were alive today, and working in the field of climate, I suspect he would have already been hounded out of a job. Being brilliant and inquisitive aren't enough of late... you also need to be "correct", and correct is a word whose definition is carefully defined by a set of mantras that you must not contradict.
Pat Michaels still has a job at UVA (although I'll admit there are a lot of people here who aren't happy about it). Richard Lindzen still has a job at MIT.
I just want to see political organizations like UCS and realclimate start to ratchet down their shrill advocacy and remember that not everyone who tries to disprove a theory is "the enemy"
I see this largely as a response to organizations funded by fossil fuel companies (such as junkscience) that are spreading disinformation. I haven't seen anything similar at realclimate (and I haven't been following UCS). Most people who are trying to "disprove" (really, most of them are just trying to muddy the waters) these theories are enemies of science in that they are dishonest about their science and their motivation.
On the political side, I have other opinions, but those aren't nearly as important as the science and the fact that we've been damaging the process with all of our grandstanding.
Most of the grandstanding is happening in the popular press (you won't find it in scientific journals - even the climatology journals), frequently encouraged by groups such as junkscience. I don't blame realclimate for defending climatology any more than I blame evolutionary biologists for defending evolution. I don't really see the difference between defending climatology and defending evolution. Do you?
It would be nice to see the additional detail so that actual significance could be inferred. If I cared enough (it's well outside my area of study), I'd write them and ask for it. Most researchers will provide said data upon request. (I've never had one turn me down.)
Slashdot Mirror
The southern hemisphere of Mars is where most of the CO2 resides and it was moving into its summer in 2002, the date on the report that gets circulated by so-called "skeptics". The Martian "year" is 687 days, so we only have about 3 Martian years' worth of data. Hardly enough to make any claims (or counter-claims) of "Martian warming".
The Sun reached its solar maxima in 2001, and its solar minima in 2006 (of its dominant 11 year cycle). The Earth, however, has continued to heat.
So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly, GW Bush, and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?
Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?
It's clear to me that *one side* is horrendously guilty of twisting the facts, and that occasionally media types (who are hardly on the other side) are guilty of playing chicken little. However, if you actually RTFJs, you'll find the side that does not tend to twist the facts nor exaggerate the consequences. (I'm talking about the science, not the literal politics. Gripe about Kyoto to your hearts content, but don't paint scientists as pawns.)
Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.
I kept looking and looking. Finally, I had to do a search. I was sure it was going to be in the first couple of posts. Well, at least someone finally did it. :)
That means those of us on Eastern Standard Time have already experienced Doomsday. (Psst, Central folk, his name is..., nah, let them experience it, too.)
Absolutely, and there actually is some merit in this. (If we scientists didn't have a personal stake in being right, then we'd give up to easily on theories after experiencing setbacks.) That's why it's also very interesting to note when a bunch of scientists who used to claim A, now claim ~A. I'm not suggesting this in lieu of actually thinking for one's self, mind you, just as a useful filter. (After all, we can't all investigate all science news.) Of course, as with all anecdotal evidence, no one scientist switching sides is all that newsworthy. And, some scientists switch sides without really letting anyone know. (As I suspect is the case with Pat Michaels - read what he's saying these days.)
It's amazing how many people see that "scientists" say that global warming is a hoax and then don't stop to think about why all of these scientists are being paid by fossil-fuel companies or why many of them have degrees in things like mining - totally unrelated to climatology.
Personally, I am a scientist, so I'm in a good position to judge the validity of junkscience (not valid - also supports tobacco, btw) vs. the validity of realclimate (valid). (I hope you're sufficiently hypnotized by me.) Seriously, I'm amazed by anyone who actually cites junkscience as if it weren't junk science.
On the other hand, if you don't know anything about science, your best option is to look at the credentials of those speaking, and at what they're actually saying. You'll find that most (all?) "scientists" who speak "against global warming" either aren't climatologists or aren't really speaking against global warming (anymore).
So, you believe a site paid for by ExxonMobil over a site run by climatologists? Really?
And I was taught that electricity took the shortest path in my highschool physics class. Several of us argued with the teacher and said that electricity took the path of least resistance, but the teacher pointed to the textbook, and that settled it.
Don't confuse highschool science with actual science. I taught highschool science for two years, and for the second year, I actually did not have them use the textbook as it had way too many factual errors. Instead we used the Cartoon Guide to Physics. (I recommened they buy it, and there were enough after that to share.) No errors in that book, and much easier to read. Also, it covered all of the topics in the thicker book plus a few additional ones.
Your teacher probably read the National Geographic or Newsweek article and decided that she needed to "educate" her class. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately misguided. However, even during that time period, climatology had already developed their theories that predicted global warming.
Just sayin'...
Just to be clear, there are rabid Republicans who also classify it as a documentary. My Dad comes to mind. Also, although I know he might not "technically" be Republican, O'Reilly is definitely rabid, and he has now come around.
You do realize that the article you linked also mentioned Frosty.
A question I have is, why did the Washington Times not mention Frosty's other "scientific" theories? Did it really think them unimportant? Or does it have its own bias?
I think that we might have different definitions of the word "serious". I'm just sayin'...
My Dad (a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in '00 and '04, and was also rather neutral on global warming) saw Al Gore's movie. He said "I still don't like Al Gore, but I'm convinced that global warming is a real problem." If you have not yet seen the movie, I strongly recommend it.
How many of these "scientists" are climatologists (or at least in a related science) and not, say, into mining? Can you name one? If you go with Lindzen or Michaels, I'll have to ask for you an actual quote, because, as far as I can tell, they no longer disagree with this "consensus".
I model the brain. It might surprise you to find out that it is also inherently non-linear. If it were linear, it wouldn't really have to be modeled by a computer. However, if you don't trust the models, that's fine. The models only help nail down some of the details. (Well, for very loose definitions of "nail" and "details", granted.) Climatologists were warning about global warming as early as the 60s, when computers were about as powerful as your watch.
I thought this was common knowledge. (There are others, as well.) Sure, not all of them were paid scientific shills for the tobacco industry, but to the best of my knowledge all of them are being paid by fossil-fuel companies now.
So, I guess one has no idea whether or not to believe in General Relativity until one studies Riemannian Tensors, launches a few satellites to gather data, and closely monitors the precession of Mercury's perihelion, huh? Do you believe that General Relativity is a valid theory? (Not the end all, be all, but the best we've got?) How did you come to that conclusion?
Sure, it's great to study non-consensus science. But for theories outside of your field, the safest course of action is to trust the majority. As you've pointed out, if conflicting theories hold weight, they eventually do convince the majority of their merit.
As for Occam's Razor, I like Einstein's version: "Everything should be made as simple as possible and no simpler." Sure, it's not a literal translation, but I think it captures the essence.
As for global cooling, it was the popular media who were responsible for that myth, just like the summer of the shark. See Real Climate's article on it.
That said, one is well advised - whether it is the hottest day (or even year) on record or the coldest - to not take a single data point as proof or disproof. What makes the global warming theories so compelling is that they were advanced during the time that the popular media was going hysterical about global cooling. It's not exactly a new theory. It's just that normal people are just now beginning to see some of its effects - and, of course, blame random weather on it as well.
However, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching Newton's theory of Gravity unless we also teach Einstein's? (Or, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching the Schwarzschild metric without teaching one of the, um, Hocking metrics?)
- Some scientists are only confident about data from the last 400 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Other scientists are only confident about data from the last 1000-2000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Yet other scientists are confident about data from the last 800,000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Most scientists (I think) believe we have good enough data going back a billion years (more than 1,000 times that last number) to say that it was in fact hotter on Earth at some point during the last billion years. Of course, humans weren't around then.
Note that none of these scientists are contradicting each other. And with regards to the last point there are two things to keep in mind:- Humans weren't around then.
- It most likely didn't heat up as quickly (although I'm not sure the data is granular enough to know for sure).
Of course, if you read the article that was posted here, the person in question thinks the Earth is less than 14,000 years old, so...I see this largely as a response to organizations funded by fossil fuel companies (such as junkscience) that are spreading disinformation. I haven't seen anything similar at realclimate (and I haven't been following UCS). Most people who are trying to "disprove" (really, most of them are just trying to muddy the waters) these theories are enemies of science in that they are dishonest about their science and their motivation.
Most of the grandstanding is happening in the popular press (you won't find it in scientific journals - even the climatology journals), frequently encouraged by groups such as junkscience. I don't blame realclimate for defending climatology any more than I blame evolutionary biologists for defending evolution. I don't really see the difference between defending climatology and defending evolution. Do you?If you're interested, here's how you can buy your own island.
And if that's not grandiose enough, you could always just build.
It would be nice to see the additional detail so that actual significance could be inferred. If I cared enough (it's well outside my area of study), I'd write them and ask for it. Most researchers will provide said data upon request. (I've never had one turn me down.)