Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

Mandark is talking about scientific consensus which is a very different animal. I think you're the only one talking about pop culture consensus.

As Mandark pointed out, there was no scientific consensus back in the 70s. All the scientists said 'we need more data'. And here we are thirty years later with oodles more data and a scientific consensus.

You really should read the ice age strawman article Mandark linked to.

I was clearly referring to the articles, studies and books that were all based on scientific studies and theories. That would be a "scientific" consensus... not a Gallup poll.

 

[Azih]

I was clearly referring to the articles, studies and books that were all based on scientific studies and theories. That would be a "scientific" consensus... not a Gallup poll.

The vast majority of what you're talking about wasn't written by scientists and wasn't peer reviewed, thus making it not a sceintific consensus. You know, scientists?, peer review?

From Mandark's post:

Why do I say the first group is a majority? Because of reports by the National Academy of Sciences the American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is also the Science article by Naomi Oreskes, which looked at 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change from 1993 to 2003 and found a resounding consensus for human-caused global warming.

See? this is what's happening now and it's markedly different from what was happening in the 70s. So comparing the two eras just doesn't make sense. The scientific consensus in the 70's was 'we need more data'.

Why are you ignoring Mandark's link?

 

[EviLore]

*puts on the MAF tshirt*



B-B-B-B-BEST SELLERS!!! ICE AGE! SCIENTISTS ARE STUPID! LOOK AT THE STUDIES FUNDED BY OIL CONGLOMERATES!!!!


You lose, son.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why are you ignoring Mandark's link?

Because I am stubborn and don't care enough.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

McLesterolBeast: I believe you misread my second post. When it comes to global warming, there are scientists who:

1) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to human factors. These are a majority.

2) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to other factors. These are a minority.

3) Deny that there is a recent increase in temperature at all. These I tend to write off as quacks.

Why do I say the first group is a majority? Because of reports by the National Academy of Sciences the American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is also the Science article by Naomi Oreskes, which looked at 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change from 1993 to 2003 and found a resounding consensus for human-caused global warming.

As for Sallie Beliunas, you might want to get another source. She co-authored a paper that was published in Climate Research, which turned out to be so flawed that it triggered the resignation of several editors from that publication. Climate Research went on to later publish the McKitrick paper that mixed up radians and degrees.

The credentials you provide for her should set off some warning bells. The head of the George T. Marshall Institute is William O'Keefe. He used to be an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, and the head of the Global Climate Coalition, an energy industry lobbying group. The Marshall Institute has received funding from ExxonMobil to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

TechCentralStation is a astroturf front for corporate lobbying.

The Petr Beckmann award is given out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small quack-farm that markets nuclear-war preparedness and a home-schooling curriculum to combat "socialism in education." The Beckmann award itself (named after a scientist who claimed to have disproved Einstein's theory of relativity) seems to be given every year to someone who denies the global warming consensus, working for foundations funded by energy companies.

So to sum up: Yes, the vast majority of scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming. Some disagree, but Sallie Baliunas is not credible.

You've provided no evidence of "consensus", except possibly the broken link that i cannot verify.

Even supposing that Sallie Baliunas was "discredited" in this post, which i don't believe she has been entirely (the only truly damning piece of evidence is against an article that isnt even by her, but someone with a link to her), the validity of the article itself wasn't a critical piece of evidence to support that global warming is attributable to humans. It's evidence that there is dissent with respect to the issue, not just by quacks (which you didnt suggest), and there are a sufficient number of individuals with very real credentials (even if you dont think the person in particular is credible with respect to that particular issue) to disqualify your evaluation of the "vast majority" or even a consensus, really. That is, unless the broken link that you provided had sufficient evidence to prove it. Could you fix the link so i can check?

I'm not sure if such literature exists - so direct me to it if it does, but it would be a lot more helpful if there was a paper that went through exactly what the "human coefficient" was. Besides Baliunas' article (which has not been directly critiqued as of yet on this board, there's only been speculation with respect to her motives and/or reliability), do you know of any?

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Actually, the link is working now. Ill look into it.

edit: but i can already tell that it suffers from extremely vague terminology. The word "cause" can, and in all likelyhood was interpreted by anyone polled (if it was phrased the same as it is in the article), then there is no possible answer by affirmation.

The idea was to test whether any of them challenge the consensus view that human emissions are causing warming.

To deny that emissions are causing warming is unjustifiable. The degree to which it has an impact on the warming is another issue. In the way that sentence is phrased, it would be difficult not to affirm that statement.

 

[Phoenix]

Did you even read Mandark's post?

Yes I did, did you read mine? If so it would have taken you to this:

Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, but with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.

Now come on, we've been down this road before. We've talked about a burdon of evidence in a wide variety of religious threads, don't slack on it now.

Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996 a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters was undertaken by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [8] (http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/bray_storch_1999.pdf) The paper addressed the views of climate science, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Almost all scientists agreed that the skill of models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns were as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years ...mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... ...the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway. ...Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

The actual concensus is described in this one hilighted quote:

climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change.

 

[carpal]

There is still not enough substantive evidence or long term research to support FIRM reasons for temperal fluctuations. There are too many variables that could have caused the small change in temperature. From existing carbon laying on the earth to magnetic fluctuations ... the contributing factors are too numerous. Which is why it irks me when people grandstand that we are on a collision course of doom. It's dangerous, reckless science and it empowers power groups with specific political motivations.

I'm curious, then. Do you suggest writing off the subject simply because showing concern for our planet's future empowers these groups? Doesn't ignoring it (or even worse, belittling it) empower groups with different, arguably more dangerous motivations? If we don't have enough substantive evidence, shouldn't be putting aside politics and doing everything in our power to get it?

 

[Azih]

Yes I did, did you read mine?

BUt you didn't address any of Mandark's points which are in direct contradiction to yours. Namely things like

There is also the Science article by Naomi Oreskes, which looked at 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change from 1993 to 2003 and found a resounding consensus for human-caused global warming.

Edit: I mean sure it's fine to post your own link, but you have to address the other guy's links as well. Especially since Mandark's are somewhat more impressive than your one.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm curious, then. Do you suggest writing off the subject simply because showing concern for our planet's future empowers these groups? Doesn't ignoring it (or even worse, belittling it) empower groups with different, arguably more dangerous motivations? If we don't have enough substantive evidence, shouldn't be putting aside politics and doing everything in our power to get it?

No, I think each country should handle thier own enviromental problems as they see fit. "Stem the tide" as they say. I feel most countries are doing a good job of this (in relation to what was done 50 years ago).

Money should go into more independent research and teaching developing countries about enviromental concerns. All of which is already happening.


I get irate when people push the panic button and start to spew 'Doomsday Deadlines'. "We will run out of fossil fuels by 2020!" or "We are headed for a calamity withing 70 years!!"

 

[Jeffahn]

No, I think each country should handle thier own enviromental problems as they see fit. "Stem the tide" as they say. I feel most countries are doing a good job of this (in relation to what was done 50 years ago).

Money should go into more independent research and teaching developing countries about enviromental concerns. All of which is already happening.


I get irate when people push the panic button and start to spew 'Doomsday Deadlines'. "We will run out of fossil fuels by 2020!" or "We are headed for a calamity withing 70 years!!"

Climate change does not recognise borders and its effects will be global in scale.

Developing countries pollute far less per capita than developed countries, though we should encourgae them to adopt a sustainable development program and be prepared to reward them in economic terms for choosing a sustainable future as opposed to the 'burn now pay later' manner in which most economically developed nations have arrived where they're at.

 

[Phoenix]

BUt you didn't address any of Mandark's points which are in direct contradiction to yours. Namely things like

Edit: I mean sure it's fine to post your own link, but you have to address the other guy's links as well. Especially since Mandark's are somewhat more impressive than your one.

If you'd read the link(s) I posted instead of continually ignoring it in a manner that baffles the mind you'd find many many many links within it. Or would you like me to copy all of the links from there into here so you can count them as a measure of which one is "impressive".

 

[Saurus]

global warming as caused by man-made factors is quite possibly one of the biggest media bullshit propaganda ever. thank god for michael crichton's State of Fear, hopefully it'll educate more people.

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

From the website...

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

 

[Azih]

If you'd read the link(s) I posted instead of continually ignoring it in a manner that baffles the mind you'd find many many many links within it. Or would you like me to copy all of the links from there into here so you can count them as a measure of which one is "impressive".

Well I wouldn't want this to be some sort of link war and that wasn't my intent. It's just odd to me that you could respond to Mandark's post without you know... responding to it.Mandark used his links as sources/footnotes, you just posted it. Not much of a response.

Especially since the FIRST FREAKING PARAGRAPH in your amazing single uber link without backup states

The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and amongst climate researchers, there is little "controversy" about global warming, only a desire to investigate a scientific problem and determine its consequences. As Kevin E. Trenberth writes:

In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger ... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences. [1]

I mean jesus. And look carefully Mandark explicity defined consensus as something being agreed to by a majority of scientists which as his link to the peer reviewed article study in Science shows is overwhelming. So your one throwaway sentence in wikipedia about some people disagreeing while the MAJORITY AGREE, actually supports his stance and not yours.

 

[Saurus]

Just saw this today...

Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
Grass has become established in Antarctica for the first time, showing the continent is warming to temperatures unseen for 10,000 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1415627,00.html

 

[Phoenix]

I mean jesus.

Yes please pray to him. If you'd keep reading, or even just go through the substance of what the scientists have said - they are saying that :

Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, but with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.

So you're saying that scientists have reached a consensus about something that hasn't been adequately proven? We could be in the midst of a natural event that could have absolutely nothing to do with human activities or at best that we're speeding along an event that is going to happen anyways. The point is that there isn't even agreement on the evidence:

There are many more AOGCM projections of future climate available than was the case for the IPCC Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR). We concentrate on the IS92a and draft SRES A2 and B2 scenarios. Some indication of uncertainty in the projections can be obtained by comparing the responses among models. The range and ensemble standard deviation are used as a measure of uncertainty in modelled response. The simulations are a combination of a forced climate change component together with internally generated natural variability. A number of modelling groups have produced ensembles of simulations where the projected forcing is the same but where variations in initial conditions result in different evolutions of the natural variability. Averaging these integrations preserves the forced climate change signal while averaging out the natural variability noise, and so gives a better estimate of the models’ projected climate change.

...


AOGCMs can only be integrated for a limited number of scenarios due to computational expense. Therefore, a simple climate model is used here for the projections of climate change for the next century. The simple model is tuned to simulate the response found in several of the AOGCMs used here. The forcings for the simple model are based on the radiative forcing estimates from Chapter 6, and are slightly different to the forcings used by the AOGCMs. The indirect aerosol forcing is scaled assuming a value of -0.8 Wm-2 for 1990. Using the IS92 scenarios, the SAR gives a range for the global mean temperature change for 2100, relative to 1990, of +1 to +3.5°C. The estimated range for the six final illustrative SRES scenarios using updated methods is +1.4 to +5.6°C. The range for the full set of SRES scenarios is +1.4 to +5.8°C.

Source

So the temperature COULD only increase another .4 degrees. The climate model is too simple for us to know for sure and the variability makes knowing for certain difficult.

However, there is room for disagreement, both about the magnitude of the observed temperature changes and the certainty of the attribution.

Climate models do not incorporate the indirect solar forcing through modulation of cosmic ray flux (increased solar activity reduces cosmic ray flux and is speculated to modify cloud cover). This is because there is no known mechanism for this effect; climate models cannot incorporate unknown mechanisms. One possible mechanism for the cosmic ray flux to influence climate is via Particle Formation by Ion Nucleation in the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5641/1886)"These findings indicate that, at typical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere conditions, particles are formed by this nucleation process and grow to measurable sizes with sufficient sun exposure and low preexisting aerosol surface area. Ion-induced nucleation is thus a globally important source of aerosol particles, potentially affecting cloud formation and radiative transfer. ... Atmospheric aerosols affect climate directly by altering the radiative balance of the Earth (1) and indirectly by acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) (2), which in turn change the number and size of cloud droplets and the cloud albedo". There is no agreement within the community for the correctness of this. Note that since GCMs can reproduce observed 20C temperature trends (including early 20C changes, where solar forcing is non-negligible) there is no obvious need for a high sensitivity to solar forcing. Indeed, a significantly higher sensitivity to solar forcing would make early 20C temperature change inexplicable.

Source Material

A recent paper (Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change, Tett SFB et al., JGR 2002), says "Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming."

In 1996, in a paper in Nature entitled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability.". Note that this earlier work only addressed the most recent period, and that estimates of natural variability are important for assessing the significance of the trend.

Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said in a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on February 5, 2002, "...about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940. Thus increased carbon dioxide in the air cannot account for the pre-1940 warming trend. That trend had to be largely natural. Then, as the air's carbon dioxide content increased most rapidly, temperatures dropped for nearly 40 years. And it seems that human effects amount at most to about 0.1 degree Celsius per decade -- the maximum increase in warming seen after the 1970s."

Source

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.... He continued: the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Source

In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/solactivity.jpg)). Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been among the supporters of the theory that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming."

Source

I included a bunch of links and an image or two so this would be impressive enough to be worth you reading it.


I'll post some more when I come back from getting something to eat.

Evidence shows that around 5,200 years ago, solar output first dropped precipitously and then surged over a short period. It is this huge solar energy oscillation that Thompson believes may have triggered the climate change he sees in all those records.

“The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability,” he said. “It’s likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.

“Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don’t, we should be extremely cautious in how much we ‘tweak’ the system,” he said.

“The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway.”

Source

 

[Azih]

Holy frajoles you're not even reading your own quotes anymore.


How the heck do you get
'So you're saying that scientists have reached a consensus about something that hasn't been adequately proven?'
from THIS

Surveys have shown scientists split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, but with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.

Scientists are SPLIT on whether the thing has been adequately proven or not. And the MAJORITY of the split lies in agreement with human behaviour causing it. Not whatever the heck YOU said.

The point is that there isn't even agreement on the evidence:

The POINT is that a vast MAJORITY of scientists do agree. Nobody and I mean nobody has said that there is no disagreement to the point, but instead (and I repeat) the MAJORITY of scientists do agree. Thus achieving consensus.

 

[Azih]

And you're dancing around my original issue with your first post in that you didn't respond' to Mandark at all. You haven't actually responded to any of his durn points which is a waste as his was the most comprehensive entry into this discussion so far. First you avoided it by posting nothing more then a single link to wikipedia and ignoring Mandark for Ned Flanders and now you're avoiding it by throwing crap on screen by responding to ME.

I DON'T and have NEVER INDICATED that I want you to post a bunch of out of context crap with random phrases that vaugely support your position bolded.

What I WANT you to do is go through Mandark's post and REBUT HIS POINTS. Thankyouverymuch.

Edit: ESPECIALLY the point at where he directly goes against your contention vis a vis the issue of whether there is consensus or not.

He says there is. You say there isn't. See. There's a discussion to be had here and it frustrates me as an interested bystander that you're not taking part in it.

I want to be a spectator here. So slap Mandark in the face with your gloves and let's get it the hell on.

 

[Phoenix]

Holy frajoles you're not even reading your own quotes anymore.


How the heck do you get
'So you're saying that scientists have reached a consensus about something that hasn't been adequately proven?'
from THIS

Scientists are SPLIT on whether the thing has been adequately proven or not. And the MAJORITY of the split lies in agreement with human behaviour causing it. Not whatever the heck YOU said.

If they are split on whether or not it has adequately been proven, what are they reaching concensus on. They are agreeing that they believe in a theory that can't be adequately prove? Hmm, sound like another debate we've had here a number of times.

And you're dancing around my original issue with your first post in that you didn't respond' to Mandark at all. You haven't actually responded to any of his durn points which is a waste as his was the most comprehensive entry into this discussion so far. First you avoided it by posting nothing more then a single link to wikipedia and ignoring Mandark for Ned Flanders and now you're avoiding it by throwing crap on screen by responding to ME.

There is however a consensus among scientists.

I responded to your post that you made right here. If you didn't want to enter the debate, perhaps you should have stayed quiet? Mandark's post brings up a body of evidence, I provide a body of evidence that contradicts some of those claims. If Mandark has issue with those claims I'm sure he'll say something about it soon enough. The point is that there ARE two bodies of evidence, two contradicting sides of this and no 'yes we agree that global warming is caused exclusively by human activity' belief in the scientific community. There are many who suggests that we may be aiding it, that we may be in a natural cycle, that it could be solar activity, etc. There are a number of scientists who disagree and have peer-reviewed evidence that disagrees with the claim that human factors are the cause. It may be the cause, but we still really don't know for sure because the environmental models we use are too simple for us to say with certainty that we DO know.

Now you have two bodies of evidence. if you're wanting someone to sort through those two bodies of evidence to arrive at a conclusion for you - sorry, that's your job.

 

[Drek]

Bit of a heads up, just because people have a degree doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. I work with some of the better long term climatologists in the country, global warming is not some hotly debated topic, is pretty much a fact. Moreso than the bolide theory (big rock hit earth, killed dinos), and almost as widely accepted as plate techtonics (somethign that people are still "split" on, split in that some idiots are looking for PR by being the dissenting opinion).

I've looked at all the global, continental, and even industrial region breakdowns of temperature change over the entire Quaternery Per., even month to month breakdowns over two decades, and full seasonal breakdowns back about 4,000 years ago. I can tell you that global warming as a direct result of human's increased industrialization is as much a fact as you can get in the scientific community.

Any astrophysicist can think otherwise, they're full of shit and need to go talk about what they actually got their degree in. Real climatologists who aren't just plugging for some Discovery channel handouts know what's up.

FYI, if industrial trends over the world don't change with in the next 10-15 years, don't buy any beach front property. Or move to Florida, such a flat state.

 

[Mandark]

Loki: Aw, leave me my running gags. I have so very little.

Phoenix: I haven't responded to you because, after the evolution thread, I fear that talking to you about science issues will give me a headache. I mean, you quoted Sallie Balunias, for crying out loud.

Raoul Duke: This is all your fault. I'll bill you.

Crow: Consider going back to Little Green Footballs or FreeRepublic or wherever it is you've spent your time before. You're obviously better suited to the echo chamber.

To various others, thank you. A bit of affirmation makes me feel a bit less alone, and a bit more sane.

 

[Loki]

Loki: Aw, leave me my running gags. I have so very little.

Find some new material.

 

[gohepcat]

Once you realize that science is funded by money ... and that money is raised by organizations that use scare tactics to get people to donate to thier "noble causes.

Once you actually speak with scientists working on things and realize that they are people just like you and me, and the scientific community is actually made up of some very ethical, good people, who have zero tolerance for junk science, then you will learn to trust them a bit more when a majority say something is true

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix: I haven't responded to you because, after the evolution thread, I fear that talking to you about science issues will give me a headache. I mean, you quoted Sallie Balunias, for crying out loud.

I presented a body of evidence which you are welcome to attack at any time. I don't have any particular interest in defending that position other than to illustrate that there are accredited scientists who have working theories that go counter to the general agreement about something which everyone simultaneously agrees they don't have the ability to prove. If you or anyone else is okay with that - that's fine, but after the evolution thread and a few others I find that 'general acceptance' to be a tad hipocritical. If we had more sophisticated climate models that took into account all of the variables and the processing horsepower to handle them properly (IBM looking your way) then I'd say that this isn't something open to debate but currently I am looking at evidence that says that the science is not proven - but everyone agrees about what the outcome is.

Sorry, don't buy that. If you do - that's up to you.

 

[Jeffahn]

I presented a body of evidence which you are welcome to attack at any time. I don't have any particular interest in defending that position other than to illustrate that there are accredited scientists who have working theories that go counter to the general agreement about something which everyone simultaneously agrees they don't have the ability to prove. If you or anyone else is okay with that - that's fine, but after the evolution thread and a few others I find that 'general acceptance' to be a tad hipocritical. If we had more sophisticated climate models that took into account all of the variables and the processing horsepower to handle them properly (IBM looking your way) then I'd say that this isn't something open to debate but currently I am looking at evidence that says that the science is not proven - but everyone agrees about what the outcome is.

Sorry, don't buy that. If you do - that's up to you.

Well, you may have illustrated that accredited scientists have developed theories that disagree with the consensus (haven't read your whole post since I thought this thread had died) but you have to then make an informed decision based on the balance of evidence, as opposed to sitting on the fence and throwing stones. The scinetific commuinity has studied the body of evidence at large and concluded that "something has to give", not based on any single climate change projection model (which they themselves say prove litttle alone) but on the balance of evidence.

Off to lunch now, I'll read Phoenix's previous post in full tonight and see if I have anything to add.

 

[Do The Mario]

Phoenix that link you posted is 8+ years old; find a more recent article that provides a valid alternative Hypothesis to the general scientific consensus.

I always get a shock in GAF scientific threads that people defend crack pot theories.

 

[Azih]

Alright I'll leave most your nonsense to Mandark to respond to if he so chooses (damn hit and artist. FINISH WHAT YOU START wanker).

But I can't let this go

If they are split on whether or not it has adequately been proven, what are they reaching concensus on.

Consensus you see is defined by a majority of scientists agreeing. So this is how it works

See if 90% of scientists agree with the theory that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change and 10% don't. Then there is a SPLIT, but a clear consensus has been reached that the theory has been proven. SEE? SEE? SEE? THE TWO THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

What you're saying is like saying that the EXISTENCE of the Flat Earth Society means that there is no consensus vis a vis the theory of the earth being freaking round. THEY'RE CAUSING A SPLIT!

 

[Drek]

What you're saying is like saying that the EXISTENCE of the Flat Earth Society means that there is no consensus vis a vis the theory of the earth being freaking round. THEY'RE CAUSING A SPLIT!

No, they're just stupid, space travel has proven the earth conclusively geoid in shape. Both from a mathematical/phsyics perspective and from actual first hand pictures by satellites.

Its more like creationists. We have clear evidence of short term evolution, very solid evidence towards it being a long term phenomena, yet you still find people who don't want to believe it because it fucks up their image of an ideal world.

 

[Saurus]

Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor

27 January 2005

Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought, flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study of climate change shows.

Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario, London would be under water and winters banished to history as average temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=604955

 

[Chony]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/14/environment.bears.reut/index.html

"Estonia's warmest winter for two centuries has woken some of its 600 bears several months early from hibernation, wildlife experts said on Friday."

Nope, not warming up at all.

But seriously.

Come on.

Comeon.

 

[ToxicAdam]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/14/environment.bears.reut/index.html

"Estonia's warmest winter for two centuries has woken some of its 600 bears several months early from hibernation, wildlife experts said on Friday."

Nope, not warming up at all.

But seriously.

Come on.

Comeon.

200 years is nothing. A mere blip.

 

[Jeffahn]

"Alarm at new climate warning

By Richard Black
BBC environment correspondent

Global temperature simulation climateprediction.net
The study used a programme that ran on PCs around the world
Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run.

This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.

Scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it shows that a "safe" upper limit for carbon dioxide is impossible to define.

The results of the study, which used PCs around the world to produce data, are published in the journal Nature.

Climateprediction.net is run from Oxford University, and is a distributed computing project; rather than using a supercomputer to run climate models, people can download software to their own PCs, which run the programs during downtime.

More than 95,000 people have registered, from more than 150 countries; their PCs have between them run more than 60,000 simulations of future climate.

Each PC runs a slightly different computer simulation examining what happens to the global climate if levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere double from pre-industrial levels - which may happen by the middle of the century.

What vary most between the simulations are the precise nature of physical processes like the extent of convection within tropical clouds - a process which drives the transport of heat around the world.

Lowest rise

So no two simulations will produce exactly the same results; overall, the project produces a picture of the possible range of outcomes given the present state of scientific knowledge.

The lowest rise which climateprediction.net finds possible is 2C, ranging up to 11C.


HAVE YOUR SAY
Society feels no remorse for ensuring the worlds youth are left to clean up our mess
Paul Girling, Toronto, Canada

Send us your comments
The timescale would depend on how quickly the doubling of CO2 was reached, but large rises would be on a scale of a century at least from now.

"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.

"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a safe level in the atmosphere."

On Monday, the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by the British MP Stephen Byers, claimed it had shown that a carbon dioxide concentration of over 400 ppm (parts per million) would be 'dangerous'.

The current concentration is around 378 ppm, rising at roughly 2ppm per year.

Dangerous warming

Next week the UK Meteorological Office hosts an international conference, Stabilisation 2005, announced by Tony Blair late last year.

Its aim is to discuss what the term "dangerous" global warming really means, and to look at ways to stabilise greenhouse gas levels.

Myles Allen, the principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said the focus on stabilisation might not be appropriate.

"Stabilisation as an exclusive target may not be adequate," he told BBC News.

"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level; what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."

Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or Seti, where several million people have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations of distant galaxies for signs of alien life.

The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project, because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.

"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.

"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders, the public." "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm