Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

Yes, that non-biased bastion of credibility SA.

These numbers make no sense. First, a "random" sampling of 30 of a pool of 17,000 signatures is statistically insignificant. There is some obvious bias in how they picked their pool. Why only contact the ones who had PhD's? Apparentally, having an MD, an MS, a BS, a BA, etc.. don't qualify for being considered "qualified"? BS alright.

But let's take the numbers. Of the 30:
4 were not located
5 did not respond
3 "did not remember" the petition
1 was dead
6 would not sign the petition

11 would still sign the petition, according to SA,
1 was an active researcher,
2 had relevent experience (based on SA's non-biased evaluation)
8 signed based on informal evaluation

To get to the "crude" 200, SA either had to extrapolate 200 vs. 17000 or 200 vs. 1400. It look like what they did was:

1. Used only PhD as their basis.
2. Used a ratio of 3 divided ~ 21, multiplied by 1400 to get to the "200 climate researchers"

There are multiple issues with this.
1. Of the original sampling of 30, only 17 responded yay or nay.
2. What about the non-PhD researchers? Assuming that only persons with PhD's are "real" climate researchers is ludicrous.
3. The denominator in their ratio appears to be reduced by the 4 they could not locate and the 5 that did not respond. It should also have been reduced by the 3 that did not remember and the one that was dead.
4. The 6 that said they would not sign the petition were not interviewed to see if they were "real" climate rearchers. Let's assume the ratio for them is the same as the positive
responders; i.e., 3/21*6 or just less than 1 was a "real" climate researcher.
5. There is no explanation for why the 6 that would not sign again would not do so. Just because they would not sign the petioin does not mean that they have changed their viewpoint. For the numbers below though, I'll include them as if they've changed their stance.

Thus, let's correct the numbers a bit. Of the PhD pool: 3 "real" researchers of the 17 positive respondents would still sign the petition.

3/17*1400 = 247 PhD degreed climate rearchers disagree that global warming is man-made and signed the petition

Assuming the same ratio of climate researchers in the rest of the pool, 3/17*17000 = 3000 climate researchers disagree that global warming is man made and signed the petition.

This pool is based ONLY on people who heard of and decided to sign the petition.

3000 is a pretty large number. How many degreed climate researchers are there?

Come on, Dogtor, would you be impressed if 270,000 climate scientists and professionals signed a petition saying AGW is a real threat to our environment? Heck, about 2,700,000?

Some background on the skeptics organizations: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html

[dawg80]

yes, we are all NUTS! Take a peek at Debbie, who thinks that there is nothing wrong with global warming. Photos taken near Anchorage, AK.

http://www.absolute-bikini.com/debbie.htm

Debbie is a true field scientist.

[DogtorEvil]

The USA is the largest producer of CO2 so naturally it would have the lowest percentage increase. India and China need to control their CO2 emissions.

Not a great argument there. The countries that signed Kyoto were supposed to be reducing their CO2 emissions. Overall, they didn't. Only a couple did. Overall, the US has reduced it's rate of CO2 increase better than those that signed Kyoto.

As of 2004 data, the USA is the largest producer of man-made CO2. At the rate China is increasing, they may surpass the US this year.

[DogtorEvil]

Come on, Dogtor, would you be impressed if 270,000 climate scientists and professionals signed a petition saying AGW is a real threat to our environment? Heck, about 2,700,000?

Some background on the skeptics organizations: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html

You are the one that keeps using broad statements that there are only a handful of climate scientists and professionals that disagree that global warming is a result of fossil fuel burning by man. And you repeatedly say that those that disagree are hacks or crazy. You are wrong.

I would sign a petition saying AGW is a real threat to our environment. It's such a broad statement. You're damned right a 100 deg C in AGW would be a bitch. Noone can prove what a 1-3 deg increase in AGW will do to the environment. They can speculate, but they can't prove it.

[DogtorEvil]

yes, we are all NUTS! Take a peek at Debbie, who thinks that there is nothing wrong with global warming. Photos taken near Anchorage, AK.

http://www.absolute-bikini.com/debbie.htm

The AGW in my office just went up a few degrees.

[DogtorEvil]

The models are not perfect and are probably on the conservative side. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than was forecasted by the models. As time progresses, the models will improve. Most of the model deal with the effects of the temperature rising. We know the temperature is going to rise because of atmospheric physics but we don't know how fast or to what degree since climate change is a multifactorial process and there are a number of unknows such as cloud cover changes.

I agree with Bill on this one. You have real no basis for making a claim that the models are probably on the conservative side. A model is just that. A model. GIGO. There is also something called modelller bias that can come into play.

And as you admit, a global climate model is multi-factorial and there are a number unknowns (cloud cover, ocean cycles, volcanic cycles, etc.). That's why the models are interesting predictions, but wholly scientifically inaccurate.

[DogtorEvil]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise through this century and into the next even if we stop all burning of fossil fuel today.

Another absolute statement that you can't back up. Today, the planet could start the process of cooling and we could could go into another Ice Age (we're overdue) just like it has done throughout natural history. Along with this decrease in temperature, you'd see the corresponding delayed decrease in CO2 (because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has consistently FOLLOWED temperature, not vice versa).

What will the climate be in 30 years? Can't really say in a particular region of the world. All we can say is that the average global temperture will be higher. Some areas could be very much colder and others very much hotter. Other areas near the equator might not change at all.

You're the one that keeps making the statements re. "in thirty years".

You can say the AWG will be higher. You can predict it. You can't prove it.

[DogtorEvil]

Some background on the skeptics organizations: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html

You're using the UCS as a basis for determing the un-biased credibility of another organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[saltydawg]

Another absolute statement that you can't back up. Today, the planet could start the process of cooling and we could could go into another Ice Age (we're overdue) just like it has done throughout natural history. Along with this decrease in temperature, you'd see the corresponding delayed decrease in CO2 (because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has consistently FOLLOWED temperature, not vice versa).



You're the one that keeps making the statements re. "in thirty years".

You can say the AWG will be higher. You can predict it. You can't prove it.

You can predict the Sun will come up in the morning but you can't prove it.

in the previous ice ages, CO2 went down because of the lower temperatures and lower solar radiation hitting the north hemisphere. Today, we are burning fossil fuels so CO2 levels would not go down very quickly.

one cycle is natural and the other is un-natural.

[saltydawg]

You're using the UCS as a basis for determing the un-biased credibility of another organization? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, but you did NOT refute their statements about the skeptics organizations and their funding by fossil fuel companies.

[DogtorEvil]

You can predict the Sun will come up in the morning but you can't prove it.

Based on many, many years of very reliable, predictable data, tomorrow's sunrise can be predicted within less than a one minute accuracy.

in the previous ice ages, CO2 went down because of the lower temperatures and lower solar radiation hitting the north hemisphere.

so your finally admitting that CO2 in the atmosphere followa temperature

Today, we are burning fossil fuels so CO2 levels would not go down very quickly

Another absolute statement with nothing to back it up.

[DogtorEvil]

No, but you did NOT refute their statements about the skeptics organizations and their funding by fossil fuel companies.

Why do I need to refute anything? There is nothing there that says that OISM is backed by fossil fuel companies. From the Site:

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

[Dawgbitten]

Are all college sports fan sites this geeky?

You should go visit a triathlon website I used to frequent. The general section of that forum is filled with GW stuff. Much more intense and educational than this. I must say, however, that our skeptics here can make much better arguement over those there that reguritate inane nonsense from what they have heard on the Rush Liimbaugh show.

[Brian96]

You should go visit a triathlon website I used to frequent. The general section of that forum is filled with GW stuff. Much more intense and educational than this. I must say, however, that our skeptics here can make much better arguement over those there that reguritate inane nonsense from what they have heard on the Rush Liimbaugh show.

I was intrigued until the Rush Limbaugh thing. I hear plenty of that here in Ruston without going looking for it. :icon_wink:

I lived overseas for a few years in the late 90s, and one of the things that I was most surprised by when I got back was that he was still on the air. The other big surprise was that the Falcons and the Buccaneers actually had competitive football teams.

[saltydawg]

Updated 7:15 AM on Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Scientist says public gets global warming

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO - A top scientist in the study of climate change says she is optimistic about public understanding of the dangers of global warming.

"I'm incredibly encouraged," Susan Solomon beamed after speaking to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Solomon, a scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was instrumental in developing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released earlier this month in Paris.

That report reaffirmed ongoing global warming, said it is 90 percent likely to have been caused by human activity and added changes in rain and snowfall to the hotter climate expected with continuing change.

"Evidence of climate change is now unequivocal," she said.

Changes already under way will require adaptation in the short term, Solomon said, while efforts to reduce or reverse change will only occur on a long term.

"I am personally an optimist" about increased governmental and public understanding of the problem, Solomon said.

But, she added, "It is complicated. You can't see it, you can't smell it, you can't taste it."

She likened understanding of global warming to that of the ozone hole a few years ago. Once scientists were able to tell the story clearly, the public understood it, she said. Now science is on the same track with climate change.

Global warming has seen the planet's average temperature rise by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, largely due to the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

"We are forcing the climate system in a new way, outstripping the sun," Solomon said.

Overall there are more warm nights and fewer cold ones, a change that affects crops and animals as well as people.

Detecting change can be difficult in one place, she said, because local changes one way or the other can vary widely from the average changes around the world.

"It requires you to think beyond your own back yard," she said.

Solomon discussed the climate change reported so far, noting that further studies due out in the spring will address the effects of the change and what actions could be taken to reduce those effects or slow or reverse change.