Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

<<Bill, (1) the average global temperature is rising. Fact 100% (2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100% >>

Bill, you care to dispute 1 thru 4?

[saltydawg]

The top federal agencies currently funding global warming/climate research include the EPA and the DOE, which happen to have HUGE research budgets. What do you think is the funds distributions by these organizations to "consensus" scientists versus those that raise questions? Do you think the budgets of those organizations for GW research (and associated infrastructure within the agencies) would be as high if they could not generate fear (right or wrong) that global warming IS happening?

Now, take the case of a common researcher beginnig a tenure-track position at a university. In a scientific field at many universities, an unwritten rule for tenure might be that the researcher needs to have 10+ peer-reviewed publications and be generating $1.5M in annual research dollars by their 5th year. Say you've done your graduate work in any of a number of climate associated fields. Point me to the tree with the most fruit? Same reason so many researchers in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc., are trying to add "biotech" to their research arsenal - research always follows funding.

Also, there is simply a huge difference in peer scrutiny between publications that support human global warming and those that provide evidence the other way. You want the 10 papers you need - think it's going to be easier to get those by supporting a popular theory or having to go against the grain?

Not to mention, most research professors are driven by political/social acceptance of their work. Pay attention to how many researchers get acknowledged for "groundbreaking" global warming research.

Simply, the opportunity for research dollars (which also adds to the salaries of most researchers, btw.), the ability to more easily publish papers, and the ability to get political/social acceptance of the research are very good reasons for someone to start his/her research with the mindset that humans ARE contributing to global warming.

And once your hypothesis is set up that way, there's not really a way to reverse it and still save face.

You have a poor understanding of science. Any researcher that finds evidence that AWG is NOT taking place would receive plenty of attention and more research funds. AWG is a popular theory because science has showed that it is credible.

[randerizer]

You have a poor understanding of science. Any researcher that finds evidence that AWG is NOT taking place would receive plenty of attention and more research funds. AWG is a poplur theory because science has showed that it is credible.

Interesting, but very wrong. I'm telling you, as a graduate researcher in a scientific field, and after having many discussions with professors on the subject of funding, getting published, getting tenured, etc. - if you want to secure funding and publish readily, your best bet is to do it in a popular area and contribute something NEW but something that would NOT go against popular notions.

Hence, we see a proliferation of studies in this field with fairly slight differences in techniques.

And certainly, if someone were to publish a seminal paper showing CONCLUSIVELY that AWG is not happening, that person would receive considerable exposure. But, the burden of disproving a theory that has become accepted is VERY high, much higher than it is to publish a paper saying the opposite. As a tenure track professor, would you rather spend the time trying to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that global warming is not happening (to make 1 sound, complete publication) or do several quick studies that don't tell a complete picture, but rest on a pre-accepted international hypothesis, thus getting multiple papers and recognition?

And even if you had the interest of pursuing the research, please explain to me how you are going to talk graduate students into spending 5 years pursing something that might ruin their future career, simply because they are pursuing something that is VERY unpopular?

Personally, I'd say to stay out of the field, but that's not an option for many because of previous fields of study, etc.

[Guisslapp]

A 2 cylinder plug in hybrid is more efficient than a big v-8 in a SUV.

It wouldn't be if you were trying to haul something of substantial weight.

[saltydawg]

It wouldn't be if you were trying to haul something of substantial weight.

Most vehicles driving around have just one passenger, maybe 2.

If you want efficiency in hauling a heavy object get an elephant.

[saltydawg]

Interesting, but very wrong. I'm telling you, as a graduate researcher in a scientific field, and after having many discussions with professors on the subject of funding, getting published, getting tenured, etc. - if you want to secure funding and publish readily, your best bet is to do it in a popular area and contribute something NEW but something that would NOT go against popular notions.

Hence, we see a proliferation of studies in this field with fairly slight differences in techniques.

And certainly, if someone were to publish a seminal paper showing CONCLUSIVELY that AWG is not happening, that person would receive considerable exposure. But, the burden of disproving a theory that has become accepted is VERY high, much higher than it is to publish a paper saying the opposite. As a tenure track professor, would you rather spend the time trying to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that global warming is not happening (to make 1 sound, complete publication) or do several quick studies that don't tell a complete picture, but rest on a pre-accepted international hypothesis, thus getting multiple papers and recognition?

And even if you had the interest of pursuing the research, please explain to me how you are going to talk graduate students into spending 5 years pursing something that might ruin their future career, simply because they are pursuing something that is VERY unpopular?

Personally, I'd say to stay out of the field, but that's not an option for many because of previous fields of study, etc.

AGW is a popular topic because it is of vital importance to the world. It's like we are all on Spaceship Earth and our biosphere is our life support system. If our life suppport system is going ####### bananas don't you think we should know about it?

I really don't see your premise that because AGW research is popular it is somehow wrong.

[randerizer]

AGW is a popular topic because it is of vital importance to the world. It's like we are all on Spaceship Earth and our biosphere is our life support system. If our life suppport system is going ####### bananas don't you think we should know about it?

I really don't see your premise that because AGW research is popular it is somehow wrong.

I'm not using the argument to say that the popular theory is wrong. I'm saying its popularity (and acceptance as fact) limits a rounded discussion on the science. It is obvious to me that the cost and consequences of entering the other side of the debate are way to much for most scientists. Instead, I see many as joining the mob, accepting the core assumption, and trying to find evidence to support the assumption.

I do question how many of the "consensus" arrived at their conclusion before they started their research.

[Guisslapp]

I have posed this question on here before and not once has there been one logical answer:

"What is the agenda of the envioronmentalist or sceintist who agree that manmade causes are causing the planet to warm?" and if you answer that question with something in regards to government money, then this question: "who has the money? and why would they buy into something that degrades their market?"

This whole arguement is dumb. MGW is happening. Anytime you drill or dig out 100 million years of carbon resevoirs and turn it into gas, therefore upsetting the system, then you are going to have problems. It is pretty simple really. "but you can't model it." Horseshit.

If you weren't completely unconvincable, you would find plenty of reasons proliferated through the last 10 pages of this thread.

And how are you so sure it can be modeled? I don't recall anyone saying that it couldn't - but I have seen plenty describe the flaws in our current models. There are many different feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative loops) that must be taken into account and many different variables to look at. The issue of "timing" must also be considered - different inputs take different amounts of time to express their effects. It is not as simple as running a basic statistical correlation of man-made CO2 to average temperature. That model would actually disprove CGW. The fact that the current models improperly "predict" temperatures over the past century should tell us something. If you created a predictive model, and your model was incorrect for predicting that which is known, what level of confidence would you put in future predictions? The GCMs do not try to take into account the changes in cloud cover (which affects reflectivity) and the effects of clouds on cosmic ray flux. These are MAJOR shortcomings.

It is funny how everytime the IPCC refines its models it discoveres new uncertainties. It would be hard to find an honest scientist that is a member of the CGW that won't admit that the models have their issues.

I have admitted that I am no expert, but it is funny how the leftists will come out now and cite "lack of expertise" to indict other people's opinions on GW when the leftists were the ones that were marginalized just a few years ago when the right-wingers were saying that we need to trust that george bush was making informed decisions mased on military intelligence we did not know about. Can't we ever learn from our mistakes?

[Guisslapp]

Most vehicles driving around have just one passenger, maybe 2.

If you want efficiency in hauling a heavy object get an elephant.

Ah, but now you are forgetting about methane which is approximately 60 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse effect...and then there is all that water vapor.

[saltydawg]

I'm not using the argument to say that the popular theory is wrong. I'm saying its popularity (and acceptance as fact) limits a rounded discussion on the science. It is obvious to me that the cost and consequences of entering the other side of the debate are way to much for most scientists. Instead, I see many as joining the mob, accepting the core assumption, and trying to find evidence to support the assumption.

I do question how many of the "consensus" arrived at their conclusion before they started their research.

Visit this site and you will see that climate scientists are actively considering all evidence regarding AWG. There is an active discussion if you want to join in. There is a lot of contrary opinions, but as a scientist I'm sure you will be able to judge what is wheat and what is chaff.

http://www.realclimate.org/

[Guisslapp]

Visit this site and you will see that climate scientists are actively considering all evidence regarding AWG. There is an active discussion if you want to join in. There is a lot of contrary opinions, but as a scientist I'm sure you will be able to judge what is wheat and what is chaff.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Apparantly realclimate tightly controls the content of the site (particularly when others express opposing viewpoints): http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73

Another interesting view (apparantly RealClimate.org editors don't even like proponents of AGW if they are not enough of an alarmist): http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/an...-heretics.html

Article suggesting what RealClimate.org's "real" motivation might be: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/en...onvenient.html

Perhaps the most telling thing about this site is that the editors elect to respond to unscientific commentary by critics of AGW while choose not to respond to unscientific commentary of proponents of AGW. They also like to point to consensus (a political construct-not scientific). I am sure that the site is not as bad as these bloggers would lead you to believe, but my quick review of this site has set off my keen since of smell: this site smells like scientists with an agenda of convincing the public of the case for AGW while maintaining an "air of impartiality."

[Bill Pup60]

A 2 cylinder plug in hybrid is more efficient than a big v-8 in a SUV.

Efficient?????? A statement like that shows that you simply don't know what "efficiency" means! The term "efficiency" I was referring to is defined by how much of the energy contained in the source fuel can be delivered to (in the case of a vehicle) the drive wheels and transport a given load over a given distance in a given amount of time.

In your simplistic example the 2 cylinder plug in hybrid gets its' "plug-in" energy from electricity which has to be distributed from its' generation source at significant energy loss, and the electricity was generated from a source fuel at a significant energy loss. As for its' 2 cylinder engine -- yes it is efficient in and of itself -- and the hybrid's ability to recover some of its' normal friction loss from braking activity does help out.

But what if you have 6 or 7 people to transport. Not going to do that in a 2 cylinder hybrid --unless of course you make 2 trips. In this situation your big V-8 SUV wins in overall efficiency.

[Bill Pup60]

<<Bill, (1) the average global temperature is rising. Fact 100% (2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100% >>

Bill, you care to dispute 1 thru 4?

(1) I don't dispute this one way or the other. I do dispute that the "proof" is 100%. The "measured" data is extremely sparse and is extremely highly clustered. Any technique to "average" this data into a "single earth temperature" suffers from enormous uncertainty. About the only way to do it would be with some type of geostatistical kriging analysis which attempts to account for the "nugget effect". And even with this technique the results can have wide variability and error spread.

(2) Anyone who says that there is 100% PROOF that 97% of the rise in CO2 is due to human activities has been drinkinf far too much of the Koolade!!

(3) This is absurd!!!!! Orbit and axis deviations could result in either warming or cooling, depending on the directional displacement from the "Normal" orientation. So your #3 is 100% wrong!!!!!

(4) "solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature."??????????????????? This doesn't even make sense!
I thought the "global" temperature you and Al keep preaching about was that of the planet earth.

[randerizer]

Efficient?????? A statement like that shows that you simply don't know what "efficiency" means! The term "efficiency" I was referring to is defined by how much of the energy contained in the source fuel can be delivered to (in the case of a vehicle) the drive wheels and transport a given load over a given distance in a given amount of time.

In your simplistic example the 2 cylinder plug in hybrid gets its' "plug-in" energy from electricity which has to be distributed from its' generation source at significant energy loss, and the electricity was generated from a source fuel at a significant energy loss. As for its' 2 cylinder engine -- yes it is efficient in and of itself -- and the hybrid's ability to recover some of its' normal friction loss from braking activity does help out.

But what if you have 6 or 7 people to transport. Not going to do that in a 2 cylinder hybrid --unless of course you make 2 trips. In this situation your big V-8 SUV wins in overall efficiency.

In fairness, a 2 cylinder plug in hybrid could conceivably get it's "plug-in" energy from an alternate energy source, such as solar power (see solar cells discussion). In this case, the "efficiency" is far worse than that of an ICE, but the energy is also "free" and "clean."

[saltydawg]

Apparantly realclimate tightly controls the content of the site (particularly when others express opposing viewpoints): http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73

Another interesting view (apparantly RealClimate.org editors don't even like proponents of AGW if they are not enough of an alarmist): http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/an...-heretics.html

Article suggesting what RealClimate.org's "real" motivation might be: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/en...onvenient.html

Perhaps the most telling thing about this site is that the editors elect to respond to unscientific commentary by critics of AGW while choose not to respond to unscientific commentary of proponents of AGW. They also like to point to consensus (a political construct-not scientific). I am sure that the site is not as bad as these bloggers would lead you to believe, but my quick review of this site has set off my keen since of smell: this site smells like scientists with an agenda of convincing the public of the case for AGW while maintaining an "air of impartiality."

Your keen sense of smell?? You got to be kidding. Your links just show that anyone can start a blog and post BS.

Anyway, if you don't like the site, fine. Their arguments and facts are what are important and you don't seem to want to discuss AGW except to say that it isn't happening. So, your opinion is noted.