Global Warming

[Artashes]

Re: Global Warming

@Eddo -- your last post you say -- I'm not sure other forces are not" in play" (forgot exact wording).
Here is what the main body of scientists have told me --- the natural cycle is always in play, it's not that other forces aren't in active dynamic mode that is the problem. The problem is that as the legitimate scientific community set out to understand the melting glaciers, ice caps, sea ice etc., the --- EVIDENCE --- keeps pointing to pollution that is exclusively produced by man.
I don't believe that any scientists initially went "head hunting" for "man" as the culprit but the evidence keep mounting and pointing to mankinds activities as a disruption of a natural cycle.
All the scientists I'm comming into contact with are telling me they are simply following the tracts and it is because the tracks keep ending up at the polluters door is the reason they are pointing fingers at the polluters direction.
The number of diverse scientific groups that all come to the same conclusion is not a coincident.
The amount of evidence has literally left no dought as to the difference between the natural cycle forces at play and the dynamics of the polluting forces at play and the disruptive character of the polluting forces.
Much of the activity by the world scientific body is defining and quantifying all cyclic aspects and the evidence is truly overwhelming in pointing to mankinds culpability in this matter.
As this research goes on the scientists are getting better at utilizing other scientific know how to help in the hunt.the worlds best are up here right now trucking heavy but in my opinion the average person as well as the financially successful community ?leaders? are both uninterested and are ready to take damn near anybody's word over any ligitimate and ernest scientist.
Artashes

[KanadaHye]

Re: Global Warming

Science requires following the evidence and the experts in the related fields (you know, your climatology PhD as opposed to your B.A./B.S-degreed HS teacher) almost unanimously agree. Listening to the media, you'd think there's disagreement, but there isn't. There's no controversy within the scientific community, just consensus.

Who are these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

[Eddo211]

Re: Global Warming

Eddo is a good example of the difficulty educators like myself are faced with. How do you make a person accept the facts when they won't accept a reasonable argument and their irrational behavior is reinforced by special interest bs science. BS science is actually on the rise as more of our education sectors become influenced by special interest money and this does not bode well for our future either. When i discuss things like inequality, pollution, global warming, special interest, labor unions.. there is always a small percentage of people in my class who seem uncomfortable about what i am saying yet they never ever provide a reasonable argument as to why they seem to disagree. Just recently i had a student who said he disagreed with the point i was making and so i asked him why he disagreed and he couldn't tell me why-he had no argument other then that he disagrees. I think this sort of thinking of believing something wo evidence or reason is a real danger to society and probably stems from religion. I frequent a michigan icefishing forum on the web and i see people so excited about the coming season yet they all know that there may not be a season at all like it was the case last year. The problem of global warming to me seems like a much bigger issue then climate change i think it touches on a much more fundemental topic of the human ability or inability to think and act rationally and this is what worries me the most.

Haykakan what is irrational is to assume that the earths weather system is stable at all times and it is only the human factor that is changing it. No one is denying that human foot print is big on earth but if you really want to understand how the weather system on this planet functions then all of us including scientists have a long way to go to even understand it.

Human factor in weather system is just one of many other much powerful natural effects.

[Eddo211]

Re: Global Warming

@Eddo -- your last post you say -- I'm not sure other forces are not" in play" (forgot exact wording).
Here is what the main body of scientists have told me --- the natural cycle is always in play, it's not that other forces aren't in active dynamic mode that is the problem. The problem is that as the legitimate scientific community set out to understand the melting glaciers, ice caps, sea ice etc., the --- EVIDENCE --- keeps pointing to pollution that is exclusively produced by man.
I don't believe that any scientists initially went "head hunting" for "man" as the culprit but the evidence keep mounting and pointing to mankinds activities as a disruption of a natural cycle.
All the scientists I'm comming into contact with are telling me they are simply following the tracts and it is because the tracks keep ending up at the polluters door is the reason they are pointing fingers at the polluters direction.
The number of diverse scientific groups that all come to the same conclusion is not a coincident.
The amount of evidence has literally left no dought as to the difference between the natural cycle forces at play and the dynamics of the polluting forces at play and the disruptive character of the polluting forces.
Much of the activity by the world scientific body is defining and quantifying all cyclic aspects and the evidence is truly overwhelming in pointing to mankinds culpability in this matter.
As this research goes on the scientists are getting better at utilizing other scientific know how to help in the hunt.the worlds best are up here right now trucking heavy but in my opinion the average person as well as the financially successful community ?leaders? are both uninterested and are ready to take damn near anybody's word over any ligitimate and ernest scientist.
Artashes

Change doesn't come easy....but at the end of the day mankind will have no choice and I do see green energy taking off in near future.

[Artashes]

Re: Global Warming

KanadaHye asks the question --- Who are these people? Two or so posts above.
The scientist -- Syun - Ichi Akasofu has a building(large) named after him(mmm) on the campus of the University of Alaska- Fairbanks.
My understanding is his actual field of expertise is as a solar scientist. He has definitely gone against the vast majority of scientists doing research up here with his personal views.
I am told by many that he has been both isolated and shut down by the huge body of working scientists as they don't have time for that crap. He is afforded all due respect but is an outsider to the inner working circles of the huge amount of work taking place up here. He has lost a lot of "scientific" respect amongst the overwhelming number of researchers up here.
As best as I can tell,he presents a tangent solar angle but it's been scoffed by the majority.
It has merit as a stand alone scientific inquiry but does not qualify as "significant" compared to the shocking findings the genuine research community up here is finding and these people are dismissing his speech to that of a paid schill,albeit a highly educated one.
The difference between him and a turk saying there is not enough evidence to prove any Genocide occurred is negligible.
Akasofu got a building named after him and a nice salary + purks. What did the others on those lists of naysayers get?
Artashes

[Siggie]

Re: Global Warming

Who are these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

If you had spent a minute looking into it, you'd find that this is exactly the reason why I drew the distinction between phd'd climatologists who have spent years studying these phenomenon and developing expertise and your average BS degree holding HS science teacher. That list has been analyzed. Most of those folks are not scientists involved with this area of research AT ALL. This list was put together to mislead by getting uninformed people to put their names to a statement they know little about.

The folks who are most qualified to interpret this data agree.

From the very Wiki article you posted. Emphasis added.

Listing criteria: The scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.

As of August 2012 less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'"[8] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

[KanadaHye]

Re: Global Warming

If you had spent a minute looking into it, you'd find that this is exactly the reason why I drew the distinction between phd'd climatologists who have spent years studying these phenomenon and developing expertise and your average BS degree holding HS science teacher. That list has been analyzed. Most of those folks are not scientists involved with this area of research AT ALL. This list was put together to mislead by getting uninformed people to put their names to a statement they know little about.

The folks who are most qualified to interpret this data agree.

From the very Wiki article you posted. Emphasis added.

It's kinda like a room full of jury members where one person doesn't believe the person is guilty but the rest of the jury does. The facts are the facts but there is still a slight chance that the person is innocent. Eventually the last jury member gives in to the others and an innocent person ends up in prison.

If there is no doubt among scientists then why is there so much doubt among organizations like NASA? It seems to me that scientists are just as if not more corrupt when it comes to lining their pockets.

[Haykakan]

Re: Global Warming

Bad examples you bring up young skywalker. Jury members do not do the research themselves they are provided some or even no evidence to work with and they have to do that with a great deal of spin on the stories they hear from both sides. Jury members are not trained to be jury members. Science research does not work like that. Scientists have decades of training and education. Scientists are people so some may be tempted to falsify data for a price but generally speaking scientists are far less likely to do this then most people because integrity, validity, reason are highly valued in this field and falsification of data is unthinkable for most researchers. With science facts are facts are facts are facts are facts.. facts are all that matters and facts are tested and retested and retested again and again and again.... this is not like the jury example you bring up. The chance of the innocent going to jail using the scientific method is a 1000 times less likely then the jury example. The thing that pisses me off is that you know this distinction yet you persist on being the pest that you are and my question is why?

It's kinda like a room full of jury members where one person doesn't believe the person is guilty but the rest of the jury does. The facts are the facts but there is still a slight chance that the person is innocent. Eventually the last jury member gives in to the others and an innocent person ends up in prison.

If there is no doubt among scientists then why is there so much doubt among organizations like NASA? It seems to me that scientists are just as if not more corrupt when it comes to lining their pockets.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Global Warming

The thing that pisses me off is that you know this distinction yet you persist on being the pest that you are and my question is why?

The distinction is in the facts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ming-alarmism/

So who is wrong here. NASA or the global scientific community?

[Siggie]

Re: Global Warming

The distinction is in the facts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ming-alarmism/

So who is wrong here. NASA or the global scientific community?

LIAR LIAR!



You didn't even read that except the title. It's a scientist who LOOKED AT NASA DATA and drew this conclusion. NASA doesn't hold this position.

Furthermore, the piece is written by someone at The Heartland Institute which is a right-wing thinktank. Hardly a neutral source.

Don't lie!

Here's the background about this article.

Spencer and Braswell 2011

In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing concluding that more energy is radiated back to space and released earlier than previously thought.[14][15] Spencer stated, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."[15][16][17]

The paper was criticized by mainstream climate scientists.[18][19] Kerry Emanuel of MIT, said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback.[18]

The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."[21] Wagner added he, "would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements".[20][21]

Spencer responded that Wagner's assertion was wholly inaccurate, "But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself."[22]

Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.

Here's that Dessler paper opposing the specific claims of that paper if you'd like to actually look at the sources for yourself and not a partisan and biased media source's twisting and spinning.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf