Reader comments
My view: Global-warming skeptic aims to mislead
115 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Robert Davies | 4:01 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
The Notion of an Expert (Part II)
I've seen quite a few bold claims in the comments above, apparently asserting expert-level knowledge on such things as feedbacks and models. But no one is backing up those claims with bonafide references. Again, legitimate, useful scientific debate only occurs in the literature (despite Derek's plucky assertion otherwise). Please, those of you so certain of your own 'gut feelings' about climate change, feel free to back them up with bonafide research results. If you're standing against a mountain of research consistent w/ anthropogenic warming - I'm going to insist that to justify it. Find something in the literature, please - and convince us all you have the background to interpret it.
To Sensible Guy: the data I cite is the entire body of published climate research. I'm not the one standing against the climate science consensus of research, I'm the one saying that if you do, you should be able to defend your position with more than a feeling. It's when someone claims to have a conclusion utterly contrary to an ocean of research that they need to back it up.
I've seen quite a few bold claims in the comments above, apparently asserting expert-level knowledge on such things as feedbacks and models. But no one is backing up those claims with bonafide references. Again, legitimate, useful scientific debate only occurs in the literature (despite Derek's plucky assertion otherwise). Please, those of you so certain of your own 'gut feelings' about climate change, feel free to back them up with bonafide research results. If you're standing against a mountain of research consistent w/ anthropogenic warming - I'm going to insist that to justify it. Find something in the literature, please - and convince us all you have the background to interpret it.
To Sensible Guy: the data I cite is the entire body of published climate research. I'm not the one standing against the climate science consensus of research, I'm the one saying that if you do, you should be able to defend your position with more than a feeling. It's when someone claims to have a conclusion utterly contrary to an ocean of research that they need to back it up.
Robert Davies | 4:05 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Economics (Part I)
Derek is correct about one thing, I'm not an expert. But I've studied a fair number of reports written by experts. For those interested, I can recommend this comprehensive study, accomplished by the British Government: The Stern Review (google it).
It's important to distinquish between our goalof transitioning to a renewable energy economy, clearly indicated by the science - and policies that will take us there. For example, I am absolutely certain it is possible to accomplish this transition and lose 50,000 jobs or more - if our policies are set by idealogues, dilettantes and fossil fuel cronies. On the other hand, as one studies the various economic assessments and success stories around the country and the globe, one understands that with the proper policies, we're not talking about hamstringing the economy, but unleashing it. This is a technological revolution, and we will emerge from it as others, more prosperous and better off on the other side. Furthermore, it's a transformation that must happen, regardless of climate change, by the end of the century. So that's my opinion - albeit nonexpert - on goal and cost.
Derek is correct about one thing, I'm not an expert. But I've studied a fair number of reports written by experts. For those interested, I can recommend this comprehensive study, accomplished by the British Government: The Stern Review (google it).
It's important to distinquish between our goalof transitioning to a renewable energy economy, clearly indicated by the science - and policies that will take us there. For example, I am absolutely certain it is possible to accomplish this transition and lose 50,000 jobs or more - if our policies are set by idealogues, dilettantes and fossil fuel cronies. On the other hand, as one studies the various economic assessments and success stories around the country and the globe, one understands that with the proper policies, we're not talking about hamstringing the economy, but unleashing it. This is a technological revolution, and we will emerge from it as others, more prosperous and better off on the other side. Furthermore, it's a transformation that must happen, regardless of climate change, by the end of the century. So that's my opinion - albeit nonexpert - on goal and cost.
Comments continue below
Robert Davies | 4:04 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
On Economics (Part II)
Also, I think it's important to understand there is a cost to no action (this is covered extensively in the Stern Report). Policy by necessity is never based on certainty, but risk management. And the risks of anthropogenic warming are substantial.
Also, I think it's important to understand there is a cost to no action (this is covered extensively in the Stern Report). Policy by necessity is never based on certainty, but risk management. And the risks of anthropogenic warming are substantial.
tree-hugging | 4:29 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Our environment is rapidly deteriorating and all some people want to do is make
some political statement against this fact.
Others say it's all in Heavenly Father's hands and are doing nothing but ridiculing others.
I for one will do everything in my power to save water, recycle, conserve energy, and yes, I might even go out and hug a tree in deep appreciation for what God has made and man is plundering.
Others say it's all in Heavenly Father's hands and are doing nothing but ridiculing others.
I for one will do everything in my power to save water, recycle, conserve energy, and yes, I might even go out and hug a tree in deep appreciation for what God has made and man is plundering.
Ryan | 7:45 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Dr. Davies,
How would one falsify the theory of anthropogenic climate change?
Other planets are experiencing global warming of their own.. not anthropogenic, presumably. Human cause is certainly not the default explanation. The burden is clearly on the global warming crowd.
I for one am more than willing to listen. But I reject your premise:
"when someone claims to have a conclusion utterly contrary to an ocean of research..."
What is and is not inferred from the data *is* the question. Even as those who do not practice a discipline may be unqualified, those who do practice a discipline can be unwittingly biased. Stating that they all find the evidence to be in agreement is not enough. The burden is on them to make a public case answering prominent objections, something I have not yet seen.
Can you give an example of what you consider strong evidence of anthropogenic global warming?
How would one falsify the theory of anthropogenic climate change?
Other planets are experiencing global warming of their own.. not anthropogenic, presumably. Human cause is certainly not the default explanation. The burden is clearly on the global warming crowd.
I for one am more than willing to listen. But I reject your premise:
"when someone claims to have a conclusion utterly contrary to an ocean of research..."
What is and is not inferred from the data *is* the question. Even as those who do not practice a discipline may be unqualified, those who do practice a discipline can be unwittingly biased. Stating that they all find the evidence to be in agreement is not enough. The burden is on them to make a public case answering prominent objections, something I have not yet seen.
Can you give an example of what you consider strong evidence of anthropogenic global warming?
mark | 9:24 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Ryan, you are precious.
robert davies | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007
Hello Ryan,
Good questions, all.
We are warming. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the theory that, by and large, humans are the dominant tug on the system.
The paleo (past) climate record, going back millions of year, leads us to understand that major climate shifts are the result of a trigger, combined with amplifying feedbacks. This record strongly suggests that the major trigger of the past changes has been slow, periodic changes in Earth's orbit (called Milankovich cycles), resulting in slightly more or less solar energy reaching us.
The warming of the past fifty years has no such solar trigger. We monitor the sun's output very closely, and there is no trend to account for the warming. So we look for a trigger. The trigger that fits well is the coincident, dramatic rise in human-produced greenhouse gases.
Falsifying AGW would first involve identifying a trigger - one that quantitatively accounts for the warming. Scientists have searched high and low; so far none has been found. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gases are a spot-on fit.
Good questions, all.
We are warming. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the theory that, by and large, humans are the dominant tug on the system.
The paleo (past) climate record, going back millions of year, leads us to understand that major climate shifts are the result of a trigger, combined with amplifying feedbacks. This record strongly suggests that the major trigger of the past changes has been slow, periodic changes in Earth's orbit (called Milankovich cycles), resulting in slightly more or less solar energy reaching us.
The warming of the past fifty years has no such solar trigger. We monitor the sun's output very closely, and there is no trend to account for the warming. So we look for a trigger. The trigger that fits well is the coincident, dramatic rise in human-produced greenhouse gases.
Falsifying AGW would first involve identifying a trigger - one that quantitatively accounts for the warming. Scientists have searched high and low; so far none has been found. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gases are a spot-on fit.
robert davies | 9:42 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007
Ryan, you are absolutely correct that scientists can be biased; there is ample
evidence to this effect. Which is precisely why science progresses through the
peer-review process. We in science spend a great deal of time picking apart
each other�s measurements and analyses. A scientist makes
a measurement, does an analyses and submits it for publication. Before it is
published, however, it is reviewed by 3 or 4 researchers in the same field.
They check for obvious errors, and they usually catch some. Once they agree the
research meets this minimum standard, it is published. At this point, the work
is open for the scrutiny of the scientific community at large. Others will try
to reproduce the results and build upon them. If they have difficulty, perhaps
more errors are found. The evidence suggesting the research is in error is
written up and submitted for peer-review and publication. This is how
scientific debate occurs, and how science itself progresses.
Marilyn in Florida | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 18, 2007
Why does it always come down to arguing about politics and big business? We
need to preserve what we have, water, forests, air, all the things we need to
survive. I have seen the huge changes here in Florida in the last twelve years.
We have nothing to lose by conservation and everything to gain. If we want to
survive as a species, we need to make changes and adapt. It is all a question
of adaptability. If we aren't successful, we will go the way of other
species, and become extinct. Take your pick, adapt and survive, or sit around
and argue about who is right. Obviously, as the population increases, the
strain on resources is immense. That alone is enough reason to conserve. It is
already happening, folks, right here in Florida, we are running out of water. I
know I can't live without it!
mark | 10:53 p.m. Nov. 18, 2007
Dr. Davies, thank you very much for taking the time to give us a deeper
understanding of these issues. Again, thank you very much.
Mahershalalhashbaz | 12:40 a.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Daniel R Simmons is right. Dr. Davies, once again no science to back up
anything you claim. No reference to where we can go to read this perfect
science. And, just as Dan Simmons is no expert, neither is your John Huntsman
the Younger. So I reject Huntsman because he is no expert and we shouldn't
trust a nobody in the climate world to make decisions for us. Simmons
isn't, Huntsman is.
strange therapy | 6:20 a.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Even though there is clearcut evidence of Global Warming, environmental damage
and the negative effects caused by mankind, there are still those fools who want
to do nothing whatsoever but make this a political issue.
And this oddly makes them feel better.
And this oddly makes them feel better.
500+ | 1:35 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
The report I provided a link to is put out by the Heartland institute which has
recieved funding from the oil industry. However, if you look at the list of
research, you will see a great variety of researchers all over the world and of
various backgrounds and support.
Also, if you think the IPCC is non-biased politically, think again. There have been a number of scienctist resign from their panals because of political involvement. Those scientist could not, with a clear consicious, continue to support what the IPCC has released.
Also, if you think the IPCC is non-biased politically, think again. There have been a number of scienctist resign from their panals because of political involvement. Those scientist could not, with a clear consicious, continue to support what the IPCC has released.
Ryan | 2:10 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Dr. Davies,
Thanks for the response. I will try to address your thoughts in the order you present them.
warming: the earth might be warming, but there are deal-breaking concerns I have yet to see addressed. For instance, the warming claim is based on global averages, with the hottest 10 years falling within the last 14. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, weather stations all over the far north shut down. So what happens to the average when a number of colder locations pull out? It goes up. Also, the environment surrounding various thermostats have changed. Replace trees with asphalt and what happens? Temperature goes up. But it does not reflect a change in climate.
earth's orbit: what precise temperature is the earth supposed to have--given its present orbit? When the earth has been in similar orbits to its present have they yielded identical temperatures, or has it varied? How much variation? Also, I know of no way to assess historical differences in one factor which could account for discrepancy between orbit-based models and current climate-- namely, solar output.
Thanks for the response. I will try to address your thoughts in the order you present them.
warming: the earth might be warming, but there are deal-breaking concerns I have yet to see addressed. For instance, the warming claim is based on global averages, with the hottest 10 years falling within the last 14. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, weather stations all over the far north shut down. So what happens to the average when a number of colder locations pull out? It goes up. Also, the environment surrounding various thermostats have changed. Replace trees with asphalt and what happens? Temperature goes up. But it does not reflect a change in climate.
earth's orbit: what precise temperature is the earth supposed to have--given its present orbit? When the earth has been in similar orbits to its present have they yielded identical temperatures, or has it varied? How much variation? Also, I know of no way to assess historical differences in one factor which could account for discrepancy between orbit-based models and current climate-- namely, solar output.
Ryan | 2:12 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
peer-review: the process you describe is simply one person scrutinizing the
data/conclusions of another, and in turn being scrutinized--it need not be
limited to journals. Nor science limited to those with certificates. 12 yr olds
practice science (in fact, Philo Pharnsworth came up with the tv idea in a
science fair as I recall) The point is, when the credentialed have reached a
consensus it is not time to throw the conclusion at the public for blind
acceptance. It is time to turn to the public respectfully for their review if
you want them to accept it.
I don't see that happening and in fact I don't see the peer-review process happening either on the issue. Instead, I see scientists who raise concerns attacked ala ad hom and the issues they raise ignored.
So what is the evidence of 'agw' threatening our world?
I don't see that happening and in fact I don't see the peer-review process happening either on the issue. Instead, I see scientists who raise concerns attacked ala ad hom and the issues they raise ignored.
So what is the evidence of 'agw' threatening our world?
500+ | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
I guess I need to pay better attention to the comment board rules.
I had submitted a comment with a URL that went to a report about 500+ scientists that have published research in "peer reviewed" journals that raise doubts about the current climate change being "man made" or caused. There is no doubt climate change is occurring, what is in doubt is the reasons for it. I have been following and studying climate change research for over ten years and I don't think it can be said definately that man is causing this round of climate change. Is there evidence that points to that? Yes. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Yes.
To get to the report. Type the following into google:
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
I had submitted a comment with a URL that went to a report about 500+ scientists that have published research in "peer reviewed" journals that raise doubts about the current climate change being "man made" or caused. There is no doubt climate change is occurring, what is in doubt is the reasons for it. I have been following and studying climate change research for over ten years and I don't think it can be said definately that man is causing this round of climate change. Is there evidence that points to that? Yes. Is there evidence that suggests otherwise? Yes.
To get to the report. Type the following into google:
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
Now watch for a goofy rebuttal | 2:48 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps now show
unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in new report
released today in Paris.
Now watch for some far-right fool to implore us to ignore this report and remember American Fries instead. What can you say? It's a world gone mad.
Now watch for some far-right fool to implore us to ignore this report and remember American Fries instead. What can you say? It's a world gone mad.
TYLER | 5:21 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
This global warming thing is rediculously overhyped and overrated! Isn't it
odd how Al Gore's electric bill proved he (the global warming hero)
consumed more energy in one month than the average American does in a year, in
one of his 4 mansions! What a hypocrite! It disgusts me!
I recently did a report on global warming and found that there were plenty of prestigious scientists who were skeptical of global warming. I also noticed those same people who feared global cooling in the 70's are saying the same thing about global warming.
I can't wait for the future when people realize the earth and its atmosphere is dynamic and that it goes through warm and cold periods. At the moment we're simply in a warm one, extremely similar to the medieval warm period.
I recently did a report on global warming and found that there were plenty of prestigious scientists who were skeptical of global warming. I also noticed those same people who feared global cooling in the 70's are saying the same thing about global warming.
I can't wait for the future when people realize the earth and its atmosphere is dynamic and that it goes through warm and cold periods. At the moment we're simply in a warm one, extremely similar to the medieval warm period.
Anonymous | 5:29 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
I've always loved never-ending summers, palm trees and balmy tropical
breezes, and it'll be nice to have them here in Salt Lake City.
robert davies | 5:38 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Ryan,
If you don't like the IPCC, refer to any of the US science societies I listed in one of my posts above. They all agree.
You have good questions. They�ve all been addressed by research over the decades. As one example, one can infer solar activity - dating back millions of years - based on proxy data. The reason you didn't know about this is because you're not a professional climate researcher. You can rest assured, there are many, many things you don't know that they do. I'm not criticizing you - no reason you should know about carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope proxy analyses, unless you're "in the biz" so to speak.
Here's the point: I AM a professional. There is unquestionably a consensus among the professional community. You can be skeptical, but give us the benefit of the doubt.
For detailed answers, try RealClimate (google it) and peruse the discussions. I think you'll find answers, and be amazed at how much there is to know.
Again, legitimate scientific debate only occurs in the peer-reviewed literature. Nonscientists sometimes have a hard time understanding this point. Nevertheless, it�s true. By the way, 12 yr olds do not practice complex science.
If you don't like the IPCC, refer to any of the US science societies I listed in one of my posts above. They all agree.
You have good questions. They�ve all been addressed by research over the decades. As one example, one can infer solar activity - dating back millions of years - based on proxy data. The reason you didn't know about this is because you're not a professional climate researcher. You can rest assured, there are many, many things you don't know that they do. I'm not criticizing you - no reason you should know about carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope proxy analyses, unless you're "in the biz" so to speak.
Here's the point: I AM a professional. There is unquestionably a consensus among the professional community. You can be skeptical, but give us the benefit of the doubt.
For detailed answers, try RealClimate (google it) and peruse the discussions. I think you'll find answers, and be amazed at how much there is to know.
Again, legitimate scientific debate only occurs in the peer-reviewed literature. Nonscientists sometimes have a hard time understanding this point. Nevertheless, it�s true. By the way, 12 yr olds do not practice complex science.
here's a solution: | 5:45 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
We must put out the sun before it's too late.
silver lining | 5:47 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
I just hope that when the world is a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, I can
get my hands on one of them dune-buggy things.
robert davies | 6:37 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
500+,
The Heartland Institute is an ideological (Liberterian) institute. Which isn�t to say there�s anything wrong w/ advocating an ideology per se, but they�re not where you want to get your science. Ideologies are always trying to prove themselves right; science is always trying to prove itself wrong.
Heartland throws up some papers, some names and surveys, and gives you their own interpretations. I�m simply saying, ideological institutes do not have an honorable track record when it comes to presenting impartial science. In their case, they don�t like some of the policy implications they perceive; but rather than debate the policy alternatives on their own merits, they choose to attack the science. It�s a disingenuous choice, in my view.
Again, if you want to know what the science says, go to scientific organizations; I listed a whole bushelfull a few posts ago.
The Heartland Institute is an ideological (Liberterian) institute. Which isn�t to say there�s anything wrong w/ advocating an ideology per se, but they�re not where you want to get your science. Ideologies are always trying to prove themselves right; science is always trying to prove itself wrong.
Heartland throws up some papers, some names and surveys, and gives you their own interpretations. I�m simply saying, ideological institutes do not have an honorable track record when it comes to presenting impartial science. In their case, they don�t like some of the policy implications they perceive; but rather than debate the policy alternatives on their own merits, they choose to attack the science. It�s a disingenuous choice, in my view.
Again, if you want to know what the science says, go to scientific organizations; I listed a whole bushelfull a few posts ago.
robert davies | 6:52 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Tyler,
Your �report� skills notwithstanding, would you concede it�s possible there�s more to the notion of consensus than what you uncovered in what I�m sure was the very intense several minutes you devoted to your research?
As it turns out, I can find �plenty of scientists� who are certain Einstein was wrong. I remain nervous about nuclear weapons, just the same.
It�s not about individual scientists or so-called surveys: it�s about the consensus of an entire community, based upon the published research. I�m sorry to sound like a broken record. But I�m going to go with the conclusions of an entire scientific community, rather than the odd dissenter here and there.
GPS works because we proceed based on the enormous volume of research supporting Einstein�s theory, not the �dissenting opinions� of a few die hards. And we should base our policy discussions on the enormous volume of research supporting AGW. And Al Gore�s energy bill doesn�t impact the validity of the science one bit. Try to keep your eye on the ball...
Your �report� skills notwithstanding, would you concede it�s possible there�s more to the notion of consensus than what you uncovered in what I�m sure was the very intense several minutes you devoted to your research?
As it turns out, I can find �plenty of scientists� who are certain Einstein was wrong. I remain nervous about nuclear weapons, just the same.
It�s not about individual scientists or so-called surveys: it�s about the consensus of an entire community, based upon the published research. I�m sorry to sound like a broken record. But I�m going to go with the conclusions of an entire scientific community, rather than the odd dissenter here and there.
GPS works because we proceed based on the enormous volume of research supporting Einstein�s theory, not the �dissenting opinions� of a few die hards. And we should base our policy discussions on the enormous volume of research supporting AGW. And Al Gore�s energy bill doesn�t impact the validity of the science one bit. Try to keep your eye on the ball...
Amen | 6:54 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Dr. Davies is absolutely correct. AGW and the body of knowledge surrounding it
are extant and have been for decades. It takes a great deal of ignorant
arrogance to dismiss such a sound body of research, theorizing, and findings
without a meaningful level of expertise.
Ryan | 8:52 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Dr. Davies,
Should I take your response to mean that you are personally aware of the answers to the questions I pose but space/time/other limitations prevent you from answering directly?
Here is what I maintain:
One need not know the details of proxy analyses to ask bottom-line questions. For instance, if we have analysis of solar activity dating back millions of years, it should be fairly straight-forward to factor it into the questions I asked regarding temperatures on the earth during orbits similar to the present orbit. It should also be fairly straight-forward to identify the average temperature at which we should expect the earth to be. It's a number. That's it. Very straight-forward. If this exact temperature has not or can not be determined through the data, we are in no position to say that the earth is currently at a misguided temperature.
As to 12yrolds and science, science is only a categorizing and sharing mechanism for achievements of individual thinkers, a tool at the disposal of the mind. The greater study one has done in a discipline, the greater the tools at their disposal. In the end, the creative genius of individual thinkers advances society.
Highest regards,
Ryan
Should I take your response to mean that you are personally aware of the answers to the questions I pose but space/time/other limitations prevent you from answering directly?
Here is what I maintain:
One need not know the details of proxy analyses to ask bottom-line questions. For instance, if we have analysis of solar activity dating back millions of years, it should be fairly straight-forward to factor it into the questions I asked regarding temperatures on the earth during orbits similar to the present orbit. It should also be fairly straight-forward to identify the average temperature at which we should expect the earth to be. It's a number. That's it. Very straight-forward. If this exact temperature has not or can not be determined through the data, we are in no position to say that the earth is currently at a misguided temperature.
As to 12yrolds and science, science is only a categorizing and sharing mechanism for achievements of individual thinkers, a tool at the disposal of the mind. The greater study one has done in a discipline, the greater the tools at their disposal. In the end, the creative genius of individual thinkers advances society.
Highest regards,
Ryan
Thomas | 9:36 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Dr. Davies --
I have two major problems with the logic that because we haven't identified an alternative "trigger" for observed recent warming, it must be CO2-driven greenhouse forcing.
The first is the obvious point that the conclusion that since scientists have "searched high and low" for an alternative "trigger," it doesn't exist. Climate science is still in its infancy. Not only the conclusions, but the measurements, tools, and protocols are less than a generation old. Even assuming specialized climate scientists are truly searching as diligently as they can for an alternative trigger (and, truly, how many grad students have the moxie to call down the wrath of the "consensus," in this unusually polemicized field, by undertaking research that will get them tagged as "skeptics"?), it's still early in the evening to call off the search. For one thing, I'd like to see more research on solar-driven feedback effects.
The second problem I have is that CO2 forcing doesn't look like quite the "spot-on fit" you call it. Historically and presently, temperature seems to start rising in advance of CO2 increases, not the other way around. Usually the trigger-pull comes before the bang.
I have two major problems with the logic that because we haven't identified an alternative "trigger" for observed recent warming, it must be CO2-driven greenhouse forcing.
The first is the obvious point that the conclusion that since scientists have "searched high and low" for an alternative "trigger," it doesn't exist. Climate science is still in its infancy. Not only the conclusions, but the measurements, tools, and protocols are less than a generation old. Even assuming specialized climate scientists are truly searching as diligently as they can for an alternative trigger (and, truly, how many grad students have the moxie to call down the wrath of the "consensus," in this unusually polemicized field, by undertaking research that will get them tagged as "skeptics"?), it's still early in the evening to call off the search. For one thing, I'd like to see more research on solar-driven feedback effects.
The second problem I have is that CO2 forcing doesn't look like quite the "spot-on fit" you call it. Historically and presently, temperature seems to start rising in advance of CO2 increases, not the other way around. Usually the trigger-pull comes before the bang.
robert davies | 11:41 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Ryan and Thomas,
You�re both trying to discuss details of a very complex physical system. It�s very easy to ask questions in this forum, but very difficult to answer them in 200 words. If you�re genuinely interested in the answers, I strongly recommend the RealClimate website (google it). Once you get there, go to the �Start Here� tab at the top.
You should both start by exploring the solar posts in the Archive. Thomas, you should also search for a post titled �The Lag Between Temperature and CO2.� You should also read the long discussion threads that follow various posts.
It�s essentially impossible for me to answer your questions on this forum because they indicate the lack of quite abit of background science on both your parts. That�s fine, but it requires considerable exposition to bring you up to speed. This exposition exists in marvelous detail at RealClimate.
Out of curiosity, did either of you pose such detailed, aggressive questions to the lawyer / lobbyist, Mr. Simmons? I don�t object to being challenged, but I get the impression you challenge the expert standing with the mountain of evidence far more pointedly than the amateur standing against it.
You�re both trying to discuss details of a very complex physical system. It�s very easy to ask questions in this forum, but very difficult to answer them in 200 words. If you�re genuinely interested in the answers, I strongly recommend the RealClimate website (google it). Once you get there, go to the �Start Here� tab at the top.
You should both start by exploring the solar posts in the Archive. Thomas, you should also search for a post titled �The Lag Between Temperature and CO2.� You should also read the long discussion threads that follow various posts.
It�s essentially impossible for me to answer your questions on this forum because they indicate the lack of quite abit of background science on both your parts. That�s fine, but it requires considerable exposition to bring you up to speed. This exposition exists in marvelous detail at RealClimate.
Out of curiosity, did either of you pose such detailed, aggressive questions to the lawyer / lobbyist, Mr. Simmons? I don�t object to being challenged, but I get the impression you challenge the expert standing with the mountain of evidence far more pointedly than the amateur standing against it.
robert davies | 11:52 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Ryan,
To briefly address your specific question: your belief that it should be straightforward notwithstanding, it�s not as simple as you pose. For one thing, all things aren�t equal. Different periods of Earth�s past have had significantly different flora and fauna present, and different land distriubtions - all very important feedbacks. Furthermore, the orbital changes are of three distinct types - google Milankovich Cycles for more exposition here.
That being said, modelers have followed your essential idea - albeit w/ a considerably more complex set of factors to account for than you�ve described, and have had remarkably good results. Again referring to RealClimate, check out the modeling posts in the Archive.
I like your comments on creativity. Individual creativity certainly does advance science, but not in a vacuum. Solid understanding of systems as complex as Earth�s climate requires mountains of data. Science is built on observations, and in the case of climate the necessary volume is enormous, requiring an army of very skilled people to build the instruments, make the observations and analyze the results - competently. At this point, the odds that any one individual will turn the field on it�s head are remote.
To briefly address your specific question: your belief that it should be straightforward notwithstanding, it�s not as simple as you pose. For one thing, all things aren�t equal. Different periods of Earth�s past have had significantly different flora and fauna present, and different land distriubtions - all very important feedbacks. Furthermore, the orbital changes are of three distinct types - google Milankovich Cycles for more exposition here.
That being said, modelers have followed your essential idea - albeit w/ a considerably more complex set of factors to account for than you�ve described, and have had remarkably good results. Again referring to RealClimate, check out the modeling posts in the Archive.
I like your comments on creativity. Individual creativity certainly does advance science, but not in a vacuum. Solid understanding of systems as complex as Earth�s climate requires mountains of data. Science is built on observations, and in the case of climate the necessary volume is enormous, requiring an army of very skilled people to build the instruments, make the observations and analyze the results - competently. At this point, the odds that any one individual will turn the field on it�s head are remote.
robert davies | 11:52 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Thomas,
The scientific community isn�t after one answer or another. They explore all possibilities for which there is evidence. They have (and are still) actively exploring solar feedback triggers. But the evidence is very weak - most would say nonexistent. And why should we jump through such intricate hoops to find a convoluted answer to a question that already possesses an excellent quantitative answer? The calculations show an extremely good fit for the greenhouse gas trigger, without having to twist physics into knots. Well understood physics provides an excellent answer.
You seem to suggest that science should search for an alternate answer because we don�t like the one the data points to on ideological grounds. Well,that�s certainly how ideologies work, but not how science works. There�s no reason to pursue avenues that are not indicated by observation. When a new possibility pops up, such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) for example, people investigate. But they find no trend in the GCRs to match the temperature data, and no clear mechanism to tie GCRs to warming. So we can tie ourselves in knots trying to make it fit, and still fail, or go where a mountain of evidence takes us. Humans.
The scientific community isn�t after one answer or another. They explore all possibilities for which there is evidence. They have (and are still) actively exploring solar feedback triggers. But the evidence is very weak - most would say nonexistent. And why should we jump through such intricate hoops to find a convoluted answer to a question that already possesses an excellent quantitative answer? The calculations show an extremely good fit for the greenhouse gas trigger, without having to twist physics into knots. Well understood physics provides an excellent answer.
You seem to suggest that science should search for an alternate answer because we don�t like the one the data points to on ideological grounds. Well,that�s certainly how ideologies work, but not how science works. There�s no reason to pursue avenues that are not indicated by observation. When a new possibility pops up, such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) for example, people investigate. But they find no trend in the GCRs to match the temperature data, and no clear mechanism to tie GCRs to warming. So we can tie ourselves in knots trying to make it fit, and still fail, or go where a mountain of evidence takes us. Humans.
robert davies | 11:54 p.m. Nov. 19, 2007
Thomas again,
Climate science is by no means in its infancy. Arrhenius made the first accurate estimates of greenhouse gas forcings on temperature more than a century ago.
Grad students don�t pursue �alternative� theories for the sake of being contrary. There is little evidence to take them along a different path. Scientists aren�t afraid of being branded skeptics; scientists ARE skeptics. All of them! What scientists are afraid of - budding grad students included - is being branded incompetent by pushing conclusions unsupported by evidence. And in order to cast doubt on AGW, the evidence would have to be breathtaking indeed. The bar is very high because of the sheer volume of diverse, independent data sets that point toward AGW.
As for seeing more research on solar-driven feedbacks, perhaps you could be more specific. Because a tremendous amount of research has been accomplished on that very thing. Again, I refer you to RealClimate and the large volume of heavily referenced discussion on that topic.
Climate science is by no means in its infancy. Arrhenius made the first accurate estimates of greenhouse gas forcings on temperature more than a century ago.
Grad students don�t pursue �alternative� theories for the sake of being contrary. There is little evidence to take them along a different path. Scientists aren�t afraid of being branded skeptics; scientists ARE skeptics. All of them! What scientists are afraid of - budding grad students included - is being branded incompetent by pushing conclusions unsupported by evidence. And in order to cast doubt on AGW, the evidence would have to be breathtaking indeed. The bar is very high because of the sheer volume of diverse, independent data sets that point toward AGW.
As for seeing more research on solar-driven feedbacks, perhaps you could be more specific. Because a tremendous amount of research has been accomplished on that very thing. Again, I refer you to RealClimate and the large volume of heavily referenced discussion on that topic.
see for yourself | 7:01 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
It is so obvious that our environment is in deep, deep trouble.
A taste of your tap water or step outside and breath in that yellow-brown air is the only scientific experiment anyone needs to prove this fact.
A taste of your tap water or step outside and breath in that yellow-brown air is the only scientific experiment anyone needs to prove this fact.
Harris | 9:08 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
This global warming thing (AGW) is connected with an overall
"scientific" worldview that includes evolution and the idea that they
earth is billions of years old.
These ideas are directly repugnant to religious ideologies that claim the earth was created by god as the abode of the human race into perpetuity; and the species of the earth originated at the moment of creation; and the earth is only 6-7,000 years old.
As such, many who argue against AGW are doing so on a priori ideological grounds. In short, they are burying their heads in the sand, covering their ears, refusing to see, hear, or read the facts and data, while chanting their faith mandras to themselves.
And just as religious ideology are the cause of the most pernicious violence humans have committed against humans, now it will be the cause of the most pernicious violence humans are committing against the planet.
These ideas are directly repugnant to religious ideologies that claim the earth was created by god as the abode of the human race into perpetuity; and the species of the earth originated at the moment of creation; and the earth is only 6-7,000 years old.
As such, many who argue against AGW are doing so on a priori ideological grounds. In short, they are burying their heads in the sand, covering their ears, refusing to see, hear, or read the facts and data, while chanting their faith mandras to themselves.
And just as religious ideology are the cause of the most pernicious violence humans have committed against humans, now it will be the cause of the most pernicious violence humans are committing against the planet.
Sins of ommission | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
I have the utmost compassion for those too blind to see what is happening to
their environment.
A deluded state of being is a form of mental illness.
And by doing nothing about it - they become part of the problem.
A deluded state of being is a form of mental illness.
And by doing nothing about it - they become part of the problem.
Ryan | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Dr. Davies,
I do plan on visiting the website you've recommended, but I take issue with your reasons for not answering.
Either science has enoudramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing.gh data and understanding to calculate an expected average global temperature, or it does not. If science doesn't know what the temperature should be, it can not say that anything is wrong with the temperature as it is.
I understand the trigger argument you made--that the change in climate is dramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing. What was the trigger causing the dramatic cooling between 1940 and 1965?
I do plan on visiting the website you've recommended, but I take issue with your reasons for not answering.
Either science has enoudramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing.gh data and understanding to calculate an expected average global temperature, or it does not. If science doesn't know what the temperature should be, it can not say that anything is wrong with the temperature as it is.
I understand the trigger argument you made--that the change in climate is dramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing. What was the trigger causing the dramatic cooling between 1940 and 1965?
Ryan | 11:23 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
The syntax was messed up there. It should have read:
"Either science has enough data and understanding to calculate an expected average global temperature, or it does not. If science doesn't know what the temperature should be, it can not say that anything is wrong with the temperature as it is.
I understand the trigger argument you made--that the change in climate is dramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing. What was the trigger causing the dramatic cooling between 1940 and 1965?"
"Either science has enough data and understanding to calculate an expected average global temperature, or it does not. If science doesn't know what the temperature should be, it can not say that anything is wrong with the temperature as it is.
I understand the trigger argument you made--that the change in climate is dramatic enough to require a special explanation--however, you assume that the earth was reacting rather than normalizing. What was the trigger causing the dramatic cooling between 1940 and 1965?"
Ryan | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Harris,
You are right that some people reject evidence because of other beliefs they hold. Certainly, it is reasonable in the framework of their belief system. At the same time, other people who consider themselves science-minded forget the inductive nature of science and erroneously mistake their own deductive beliefs for science.
You are right that some people reject evidence because of other beliefs they hold. Certainly, it is reasonable in the framework of their belief system. At the same time, other people who consider themselves science-minded forget the inductive nature of science and erroneously mistake their own deductive beliefs for science.
Telling us to be careful | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
The earth is, to a certain extent, our mother. She is so kind, because whatever
we do, she tolerates it. But now, the time has come when our power to destroy is
so extreme that Mother Earth is compelled to tell us to be careful. The
population explosion and many other indicators make that clear, don't they?
Nature has its own natural limitations.
Other planets are warming | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
No one answered the question on why other planets in our solar system are also
warming?
We DO have our priorities | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
In total agreement with President Bush when he rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,
which requires industrialized nations to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, I have
to say, I'm sorry, but it's vital to the health of the U.S. economy
that we destroy the entire Earth.
What's in it for me? | 2:07 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
As far as President Bush rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, I say, I'm with
Bush: What have future generations ever done for me?
So long | 2:18 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
As a resident of Greenland, I only have one thing to say: goodbye.
Why not go elsewhere? | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
I'm sick of all the whiners crying about global warming. If you've got
a problem with how this planet is run, why don't you go someplace else and
see how you like it there?
Ian | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
To Ryan,
Please post your credentials so we can have some idea if you are worth listening to or not.
And it wouldn't hurt for you, Dr. Davies, to do the same.
Thanks.
Please post your credentials so we can have some idea if you are worth listening to or not.
And it wouldn't hurt for you, Dr. Davies, to do the same.
Thanks.
robert davies | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Ryan,
Short answer: Yes - with error bars.
Earth has no preferred temperature; it�s not like setting a thermostat in your house. Our global ave. sfc. temperature (GAT) results from many factors: incoming solar energy, distribution of land, ice cover, atmospheric composition, amount and type of living organisms, ocean circulation, axis tilt, aerosol composition, atmospheric chemistry, volcanic activity, and the list goes on. It�s like your house without the thermostat: nothing in nature is trying to keep us at one temperature or another.
It boils down to energy absorbed vs. energy emitted; there must be a balance. Fundamental physics - combined with detailed observations constraining functional parameters such as aerosols, ozone, insolation (incoming solar radiation), albedo, and many others - allows us to calculate the contributions of all the various �forcings� on the temperature. It is utterly basic physics that increasing greenhouse gases will increase the energy absorbed, resulting in higher temperatures. The only real question is: how much higher? The answer depends on many additional feedbacks.
Scientists verify calculations - and calibrate them - against the paleoclimate record. It is straightforward to say that, without the greenhouse effect, Earth�s GAT would be about 0 deg F. Go to RealClimate.
Short answer: Yes - with error bars.
Earth has no preferred temperature; it�s not like setting a thermostat in your house. Our global ave. sfc. temperature (GAT) results from many factors: incoming solar energy, distribution of land, ice cover, atmospheric composition, amount and type of living organisms, ocean circulation, axis tilt, aerosol composition, atmospheric chemistry, volcanic activity, and the list goes on. It�s like your house without the thermostat: nothing in nature is trying to keep us at one temperature or another.
It boils down to energy absorbed vs. energy emitted; there must be a balance. Fundamental physics - combined with detailed observations constraining functional parameters such as aerosols, ozone, insolation (incoming solar radiation), albedo, and many others - allows us to calculate the contributions of all the various �forcings� on the temperature. It is utterly basic physics that increasing greenhouse gases will increase the energy absorbed, resulting in higher temperatures. The only real question is: how much higher? The answer depends on many additional feedbacks.
Scientists verify calculations - and calibrate them - against the paleoclimate record. It is straightforward to say that, without the greenhouse effect, Earth�s GAT would be about 0 deg F. Go to RealClimate.
robert davies | 4:23 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Ryan,
Calculations and observations strongly suggest that the cooling observed from the mid-�40�s through early �70�s was likely the result of man-made aerosols (small particulates) produced by burning coal. These particles tend to reflect incoming sunlight back to space, inducing cooling. Unfortunately, they also cause things like acid rain and a host of health effects, including cancer, emphysema and asthma. Beginning in the �70s, most of the industrialized world passed environmental regulations resulting in a dramatic reduction in sulfate and other aerosols; the cooling effect was dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, CO2 continues to pour out of the smokestacks unabated. As always, read about this in much greater detail at RealClimate.
Calculations and observations strongly suggest that the cooling observed from the mid-�40�s through early �70�s was likely the result of man-made aerosols (small particulates) produced by burning coal. These particles tend to reflect incoming sunlight back to space, inducing cooling. Unfortunately, they also cause things like acid rain and a host of health effects, including cancer, emphysema and asthma. Beginning in the �70s, most of the industrialized world passed environmental regulations resulting in a dramatic reduction in sulfate and other aerosols; the cooling effect was dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, CO2 continues to pour out of the smokestacks unabated. As always, read about this in much greater detail at RealClimate.
karma | 6:02 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
People who will not admit that our environment is in trouble and refuse to do
anything about it but play political games, are destined to return to earth as a
slug living inside a styrofoam cup in a toxic waste dump.
Karma is karma.
Karma is karma.
Why not?? | 6:35 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Even if you choose to disbelieve current scientific consensus, why not still
take action to prevent problems "possibly" related to global warming?
It's too bad this issue has become so politicized! I know Utah is largely republican, but I thought Mormon theology really emphasized caring/careful stewardship over the earth and its creatures. I'm an outsider, but am I wrong??? I would assume ones religious beliefs -- particularly groups who are so pronounced in their piety -- should govern their politics and not the other way around.
Not trying to criticize, just offer an outsider viewpoint. Take care. Good article. Thanks
It's too bad this issue has become so politicized! I know Utah is largely republican, but I thought Mormon theology really emphasized caring/careful stewardship over the earth and its creatures. I'm an outsider, but am I wrong??? I would assume ones religious beliefs -- particularly groups who are so pronounced in their piety -- should govern their politics and not the other way around.
Not trying to criticize, just offer an outsider viewpoint. Take care. Good article. Thanks
Ryan | 6:56 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Ian,
You are using a type of ad hominem fallacy. If you are able to, judge what is said, not who is saying it. That's my advice. To answer your question, high school.
Ryan
You are using a type of ad hominem fallacy. If you are able to, judge what is said, not who is saying it. That's my advice. To answer your question, high school.
Ryan
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Elder Royden Glade Derrick dies 9:47 p.m.
- Karzai: army needs more time 9:46 p.m.
- Police: Dad spanked son over corn 9:45 p.m.
- Current decade could be warmest 9:45 p.m.
- Bomb blasts kill 127 in Baghdad 9:44 p.m.
- Students, militia clash in Iran 9:43 p.m.
- World datelines 9:43 p.m.
- Utah environmental director honored 9:41 p.m.
- Doctor shot to death at clinic 9:40 p.m.
- Police say woman tried to steal fetus 9:40 p.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Storm pounds Utah for 2nd day
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Ranking the bowl games
- $2M error could mean layoffs
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Dr.: Mitchell seeks signs from God
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
278 - Letters: Global warming a lie212
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl205
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall162
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil142
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax107
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony101
- Harpring's NBA career is over99
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Bill is a class act. I wish him well in retirement. Utah is a better place...
Dave did a great job overseeing a very complex renovation project. He will...
Why not just launch it into space I'm sure it won't do any damage in a star...
you should go look at his 82game stats. He may not look very good or...
The same old extremist mob that pushes all the crazy leftist causes. The...
I am sick of the Democrats continually name calling of anybody who opposes...
Well said: spend. I totally agree and I am as frustrated as you are.
Heaven forbid.
HOU refuses to play TMac because they know he will make their team WORSE....
How many people think they should have been born a bird? Not a sensible...
Advertisements
The point of my commentary was that this is very complex science, and that very dedicated and serious scientists have been working very hard to understand it for many decades. This climate science community, as is overwhelmingly reflected in the literature (the peer-reviewed science literature), has very high confidence in the conclusions that (i) we're warming; (ii) the cause is primarily anthropogenic; and (iii) the probablility of severe consequences to human society and the human ecosystem over the next century is very high. That community is trying very hard to communicate that fact to the rest of society.