toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[some other dude]

...says noted scientist Michael Crichton.

Rather, it was noted novelist Michael Crichton, speaking at Cal Tech.


Another excerpt, regarding the hypothesis of Nuclear Winter:

Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."


What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring.

A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darn, got another nasty rep from someone who doesn't like being ignored.

 

[some other dude]

So if there's one scientist who disagrees with E=Mc^2, it plunges the validity of the equation into doubt until said scientist is converted or dies of old age?

The validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is and always has been in doubt. That's the way science works. In the next five, twenty, one hundred years, somebody will come up with The Grand Unified Theory That Explains Everything and it will toss Einstein's work on the ash heap of history, where it will join it when the next best thing comes along.

 

[Selaphiel]

The validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is and always has been in doubt. That's the way science works. In the next five, twenty, one hundred years, somebody will come up with The Grand Unified Theory That Explains Everything and it will toss Einstein's work on the ash heap of history, where it will join it when the next best thing comes along.

Which means nothing at this time. Einstein's theory of general relativity is still the best theory that makes the best predictions and best explains the available data.
You need actual data to criticize a scientific theory, not just the speculation that it might be obsolete in 25 years.

Can you give us some examples of doubt when it comes to Einstein's theory? Some phenomena that it fails to describe maybe?

Fact remains, those who do not believe in global warming have failed to present any evidence that support their assertions. Where is the data that support their ideas? All I have seen is conspiracy theories about it being a ploy for socialism which is at best a ridiculous claim. Not interested in conspiracy theories, I'm interested in scientific data.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did Einstein's theory invalidate Newton's theory? No. It is more precise than Newton's theory, and applicable under more circumstances than Newton's.

But we still use Newton's theory to accurately navigate spacecraft.

Likewise when something better than Einstein's theory comes along, we will still be able to calculate tiny changes in orbits based on relativity.

We really, really need a national standard for science education.

 

[some other dude]

Which means nothing at this time. Einstein's theory of general relativity is still the best theory that makes the best predictions and best explains the available data.

Yep. I never said otherwise.

You need actual data to criticize a scientific theory, not just the speculation that it might be obsolete in 25 years.

I wasn't criticizing relativity, merely noting that like all scientific theories, it should not be presented as an absolute truth.

Can you give us some examples of doubt when it comes to Einstein's theory? Some phenomena that it fails to describe maybe?

Sure. Gravity. Quantum mechanics.

Fact remains, those who do not believe in global warming have failed to present any evidence that support their assertions. Where is the data that support their ideas?

OK, I'll make this simple. Has the earth warmed before man started burning fossil fuels?

 

[Selaphiel]

I wasn't criticizing relativity, merely noting that like all scientific theories, it should not be presented as an absolute truth.

No one has claimed that it is, but it is our best estimate.

Sure. Gravity. Quantum mechanics.

And? Do the theory of relativity claim to explain this? There are two pillars of modern physics, namely general relativity for macro physics and quantum theory for micro physics.
It is not a given that we can discover a grand unified theory, it may very well be that different laws emerge at different levels of reality.

OK, I'll make this simple. Has the earth warmed before man started burning fossil fuels?

Of course it has. And this is relevant how? Science understands these cycles (like varying solar activity for example) very well, and we are not due for those naturally occurring cycles yet. And if you think that we are, where is the evidence? As I said above, I'm not interested in assertions, I'm only interested in data.

From the IPCC "Summary for policymakers":

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since
the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to
+2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}

• The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30
[+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide radiative
forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years.
{2.3, 6.4}

• Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust)
together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an
indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the
time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive
modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime
and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

• Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric
ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m-2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in
halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m-2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land-cover changes and
deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of -0.2 [-0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to
+0.2] W m-2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m-2 are shown in Figure SPM-2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2}

• Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]
W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}"

http://www.offnews.info/downloads/SPM2feb07.pdf

So yes, there is good data that suggests that there is a serious anthropogenic factor in the warming that we experience.

 

[Alate_One]

We really, really need a national standard for science education.

I thought we did but it involves drilling observation, hypothesis, experiment and conclusion into people's heads.

These are some great lessons that actually teach how science works.

 

[some other dude]

No one has claimed that it is, but it is our best estimate.

Looks like we agree.

And?

You asked "Some phenomena that it fails to describe maybe?".

I answered. :idunno:

Of course it has. And this is relevant how? Science understands these cycles (like varying solar activity for example) very well

:chuckle: Good one.

... there is good data that suggests that there is a serious anthropogenic factor in the warming that we experience.

I give you props for wording it the way a scientist would. :thumb:

 

[annabenedetti]

Another excerpt, regarding the hypothesis of Nuclear Winter:

Carl Sagan - nuclear winter... Paul Ehrlich - population hysteria...Al Gore - global warming. All variations on the theme of hysterical crises in need of urgent global action.

 

[some other dude]

Crichton's lecture is a bit long, but worth reading the full text. He doesn't deny the possibility of calamitous happenings, rather he makes a strong case for the corruption that occurs when science is wedded to policy.

 

[Alate_One]

Crichton's lecture is a bit long, but worth reading the full text. He doesn't deny the possibility of calamitous happenings, rather he makes a strong case for the corruption that occurs when science is wedded to policy.

If it's all so corrupt and evil and insidious, why don't we have a coherent climate policy?

I look at when science and policy interact and I see politicians that distort, ignore and play down science when it's politically expedient. Climate science is no different. Big lobbies like coal, oil and gas have a vested interest in keeping their virtual monopoly on energy. The fishing lobby has an interest in higher catch quotas. The ag lobby has an interest in avoiding water quality regulation. etc. Even if the science shows that changes need to be made, people making money are going to want to quash that science. Just like the tobacco companies did so successfully for many years with cigarettes. Wake up.

American Denial of Global Warming

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, since the sun is relatively cool now, we should be cooling off. But instead it's warming up. For reasons mentioned above.

 

[some other dude]

If it's all so corrupt and evil and insidious, why don't we have a coherent climate policy?

I look at when science and policy interact and I see politicians that distort, ignore and play down science when it's politically expedient. Climate science is no different. Big lobbies like coal, oil and gas have a vested interest in keeping their virtual monopoly on energy. The fishing lobby has an interest in higher catch quotas. The ag lobby has an interest in avoiding water quality regulation. etc. Even if the science shows that changes need to be made, people making money are going to want to quash that science. Just like the tobacco companies did so successfully for many years with cigarettes. Wake up.

Good. You're right to be suspicious of those with vested interests in regard to policy changes.

Now, rub the sand from your eyes sleepyhead and tell me this: who benefits from green energy and carbon credits?

 

[Alate_One]

Good. You're right to be suspicious of those with vested interests in regard to policy changes.

Now, rub the sand from your eyes sleepyhead and tell me this: who benefits from green energy and carbon credits?

Where are the green energy and carbon credits? If there are any compare them to the size of the coal, oil and gas subsidies. Compare green energy to the profits of those companies. Then come back and talk to me. Better yet, watch the video I linked.

 

[otayOtay]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 13th, 2011 10:01 AM

]

the winters are colder w/ more snow and there have been terrible storms..

i say global warming is a farse..

 

[The Barbarian]

the winters are colder w/ more snow

Well, let's take a look...

The data is here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Global surface temperature readings for December
1980s
43
32
13
-6
12
48
26
1990s
27
44
25
13
-1
32
28
37
51
64
34
33
2000s
63
46
75
63
77
81
61
61
69
55

No way to deny that winters are getting warmer. If you want to do it yourself, pick any month or combination of months. Same thing. BTW, the model also predicted more snow at higher latitudes. Why? Because warmer oceans mean more evaporation, and more precipitation.

and there have been terrible storms..

Which is a prediction of the model.

i say global warming is a farse..

Surprise.

 

[some other dude]

Where are the green energy and carbon credits? If there are any...

Carbon trading, corn to ethanol, windmill, solar, you name it.

compare them to the size of the coal, oil and gas subsidies. Compare green energy to the profits of those companies.

I'm not sure what argument you're making. Are you saying that because they are smaller they don't have a vested interest in growing bigger?

 

[Alate_One]

Carbon trading,

Where is there carbon trading in the US? As far as I'm aware it exists only as an idea.

corn to ethanol,

Corn to ethanol has virtually no climate change benefits. All it does is take food out of the food supply.

windmill, solar, you name it.

Again these are microscopic, and what's wrong with growing them bigger? Fossil fuels WILL run out eventually. China is taking the lead in these technologies, do you want to be left behind?

I'm not sure what argument you're making. Are you saying that because they are smaller they don't have a vested interest in growing bigger?

Of course they have an interest, I'm saying they have no power to control the debate because they are tiny. Their influence is negligible. When was the last time you saw an ad from a solar company? I've seen the big oil company ads multiple times every night, telling me how wonderful they are. If you're going to argue someone is corrupting the scientific debate, it makes sense to follow where there's actually plenty of money to spend, and it's not the fledgeling solar and wind industries.

 

[Selaphiel]

Carl Sagan - nuclear winter... Paul Ehrlich - population hysteria...Al Gore - global warming. All variations on the theme of hysterical crises in need of urgent global action.

How is this relevant? How are completely separate issues relevant to the question of global warming? How about looking at the scientific evidence for global warming instead of portraying it as merely a political issue? It is a political issue because the scientific evidence for it is strong, not the other way around. It is a serious issue, so of course it will become a political issue.