Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Windhover · Oct 22, 2012

Dan26 said:
Peer review is not, in itself evidence.

It is a moot point anyway, because if you are going to argue by consensus (which is what is what peer review esentially is) then you will have to become sceptical. There is no consensus at all anymore. The most important chapter of the last IPCC report was signed off by a mere 25 scientists.

25!!

It was over 50, but after climategate only 25 could bring themselves to sign it.

I can show you a petition with 31,000 scientists who disagree with the alarmism. Can you show me a petition showing a similar number of alarmist scientists? I can show you 1,100 peer reviewed paper sceptical of the alarmism.

It's a myth that there is a consenus favouring the alarmists. The consensus is with the sceptics.

But you know the difference? I would NEVER use that consensus to say I am right. That's cave-man stuff. That's science by consensus isntead of science by results. I know I'm roght because we have the empirical evidence on our side and that is why no scientists in his right mind would change his opinion into becoming an alarmist. They are all going in one direction. Hasn't that made you sit up and take notice? Hasn't that set off MAJOR alarm bells with you?

If you paid some attention to this and looked at the science, instead of the politics, you would change your mind.

I think deep down you know the debate has been lost. Alarmist scientists refuse to debate in public anymore. They used to, but they were always defeated. Why don't they want to debate anymore? It's because they know they have a flimsy case which they can't defend with any empirical evidence.

Now how about answering my question: How do you judge science "on its own merits" except by the rigorous process of peer review?

Dan26 · Oct 22, 2012

Upton Sinclair said:
So you are saying you're insulted st being called a "free marketeer"?

And if a cabal of scientists working in cahoots to manipulate scientific data to try and foist a hoax on the world ISN'T a conspiracy can you explain WTF is then?

It's not a conspiracy, Upton.

It's a whole lot of vested interest all pointing in the one direction. Scientists are being paid to find an "alarmist" link between global warming and humans. How could hundreds of well-paid, well-meaning scientists not come up with graphs, data and statistics? Hasn't it struck you as odd that most of the sceptical scientists are NOT government funded? They are privately funded, or retired or independnet? That's not a coincidence. Hasn't that occured to you?

What about banks? Why would banks support global warming? They dont pollute. Why would they care? Because banks stand to benefit from trading usless bits of paper called carbon credits. They stand to make billions. If you know anything abut how money is created, you would realise that banks unofficially control the country. If you control the money supply, you can control pretty much everything including naive government bureaucrats.

Those that "believe" in the global warming gravy tran have their meal ticket on it so it makes sense to keep this crisis going for as long as possible.

There is a good phrase that the left-wing like to use: "Don't let a crisis go by without taking advantage of it"

That is very appropriate in this case. No, it's not a conspiraxy Upton. It's just that most of those who stand to benefit are on the alarmist side.

It won't last. The truth always comes out eventually and we are starting to see the beginning of the end. The US election has not even discussed this so-called "important topic to save humanity." Obama has been advised that it is alarmist nonsense. They all know now Upton. Just accept it.

Dan26 · Oct 22, 2012

Windhover said:
Now how about answering my question: How do you judge science "on its own merits" except by the rigorous process of peer review?

You judge it by experiment and evidence.

If there was "peer-review" that the Earth was flat, and one man came along and dissproved it, then what does that say?

You seem determined to look for anything you can to "prove to yourself" that the alarmist case is real. It's not.

So, you look for "peer review" because you think it validates your views. Don't. Look at the evidence. All of the predictions have been exaggerated. The alarmist view is not compatible with the evidence, the sceptical view is.

All the evidence we have from the real world suggests that a doubling of C02 has an impact close to 0.5 of a degree than the 3 degrees that is built into the alarmist computer models.

Windhover · Oct 22, 2012

Dan26 said:
Upton, you still don't get it. You never will. Despite NO empirical evidence to support your whacky religion that hundreds of scientists are running away from and NONE are joining, you still cling to it.

You still havn't answered why NO scientists are changing from sceptic to alarmsit, and why all the opinion changers are going from alarmist to sceptic. You are like a crazy religious freak, waving his flag furiously on global warming hill, increasingly alone.

Dear Dan,
You claim (correctly) that argument from authority is no argument at all. Yet you keep on harping on about "hundreds of scientists are running away from [AGW] and none are joining." Purleese.

Let me entertain you and assume your statement is right. What does it prove? You seem to be arguing that because many clever scientists, having studied the absence of empirical evidence and concluded that AGW is real and thus become "alarmist", their somehow escaping the clutches of this "whacky religion" and becoming "sceptic" is a sort of justification for the ordinary person (and you) to conclude that there is obviously something pretty dodgy about AGW "science".

But don't you see the problem? On your assumptions how could these guys be clever scientists in the first place? They put their "faith" in a whacky religion with no empirical evidence. They don't sound like scientists to me and they are certainly not clever (because it is not clever to work with no empirical evidence). I mean it is not as if young scientists actually grow brains as they get old. You well know that most important scientific discoveries are by the young scientists.

On the other hand it is well known that as people grow old certain mental processes can deteriorate. Therefore, if we accept that as people age they can get stupider, this might well explain why scientists who change their opinion only go one way as they grow old. That is, as they grow old they can no longer follow the science that demonstrates AGW and for some of them, as a cloak for their stupidity, adopt scepticism.

Windhover · Oct 22, 2012

Dan26 said:
You judge it by experiment and evidence.

But what is "experiment" and "evidence"? I did an experiment and proved the world was flat. I went to every part of the world with a glass of water and the water in it was always flat. How is that for empirical evidence? If the world was round the water would have tilted from horizontal in most places and in some would have fallen out of the glass completely.

fishardansin · Oct 22, 2012

Windhover said:
But what is "experiment" and "evidence"? I did an experiment and proved the world was flat. I went to every part of the world with a glass of water and the water in it was always flat. How is that for empirical evidence? If the world was round the water would have tilted from horizontal in most places and in some would have fallen out of the glass completely.

Even with that argument Dan deliberately espouses mistruth, either that or he is mentally unbalanced. You are pretty much wasting your time with Dan. There may exist people who genuinely don't know much as cast doubt for this reason, while still having an open mind to evidence .... from reality.

This experiment Dan speaks of is what the peer review is all about. Papers a submitted to a journal then they are sent off to three referees all of which are experience and esteemed experts in that particular field. Also it needs to be pointed out how particular. For example a mathematics paper isn't sent to any mathematician, not even someone in the same area. The have to be people working in the exact same set of problems. If you wrote a paper on Random fields then despite it's use of calculus it doesn't go to an expert in mechanics or partial differential equations or even an applied statistician, nor does it go to an algebraist or topologist. Even though this field relies on work done in all these fields it goes directly to an expert of Random fields. Same would occur in climate science. So while Tim Flannery, picked him because so many delialists like pick on him, may write some paper for climatology it would only be in regards to the paleological record. He would not be asked to referee a paper on atmospherics.

The first thing they would do is point to the floors in his methodology and also to why he can not extrapolate from his glass of water to make an assumption on the shape of the earth.

Further to this not only do they rigorously review methodology and assumptions made, as well as checking any references used and how they relate to paper they also consider whether the work was a significant step in the field. This is why it is not uncommon for a paper to be submitted to an A ranked journal and after review the referees don't find any flaws in it decide it is not worth publishing. Of course that is not a conspiracy to "hide the truth" an academic who either disagrees with that assessment, or more likely just needs to get x amount of papers published over a certain period of time, will then send it to a lower ranked journal for review, often with a few improvements because all reasons for rejection are explained, including "not enough significance". This can be argued too if you think there is an error in judgement. However, if your work is correct you can always find some journal somewhere that will publish it.

Despite this Dan doesn't produce any papers that back up his repeating of truisms and mad ramblings. Funny that.

Patrick Bullet · Oct 22, 2012

Patrick Bullet said:
What do you think the peer review process involves?

Dan26 are you in any danger of answering this?

Upton Sinclair · Oct 22, 2012

Dan26 said:
<snip unattributed copy & paste job >]

Can you please give a source for wherever you copy & pasted that from? Normally I would indulge your intellectual sloppiness & just Google the text of what you've plagiarised but bring hampered by posting from my phone makes that difficult.

Upton Sinclair · Oct 22, 2012

Dan26 said:
.

I can show you a petition with 31,000 scientists who disagree with the alarmism.

I can show you peer reviewed evidence, published in the dozens, week in week out, all of which progress the science, little of which supports your batty Blog Science © conspiracy theories (not that I'd bother, except as an exercise in showing how vapid your claims are, because you'd just deny it anyway). As for your pathetic appeal to authority with your 31000 names, those names do not represent climate science. Only a tiny fraction have even the vaguest of qualifications to hold a contrary opinion on the matter. A PhD in veterinary science does not qualify you as having a credible opinion on climate science.

bomberfan11 · Oct 23, 2012

Antarctic sea ice was at record high levels this year

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...a-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

bomberfan11 said:
Antarctic sea ice was at record high levels this year

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...a-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/

And what are your thoughts as to the significance of this observation?

fishardansin · Oct 23, 2012

The article says that it is inline with predictions of a warming world.

bomberfan11 · Oct 23, 2012

Upton Sinclair said:
And what are your thoughts as to the significance of this observation?

I think that it is fairly significant. The largest area of ice on the whole planet which is meant to be warming drastically is actually getting colder. Why isn't it in the headlines at all? If the ice was at record low levels this would get heaps of media attention.

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

bomberfan11 said:
I think that it is fairly significant. The largest area of ice on the whole planet which is meant to be warming drastically is actually getting colder. Why isn't it in the headlines at all? If the ice was at record low levels this would get heaps of media attention.

The issue is that the Antarctic isn't warming significantly (relative to the Arctic, at least) and has never been expected to warm significantly for at least 50 years or so. The reason is because the Antarctic is surrounded by ocean, the Arctic is surrounded by land, the Antarctic is somewhat counter-intuitively projected to get cooler before it starts to warm significantly (the reason is to do with the way ocean currents pull the warming waters into to the deep ocean causing the surface temperatures to decrease. This phenomenon has been a part of climate models for nearly 25 years now).

Whereas the Arctic, because it is surrounded by land, has long shown in models to warm significantly before the rest of the plant - an effect known as Arctic amplification - and which is clearly happening, the globe on average has warmed by about 0.7 degrees while the Arctic has warmed by over 3 degrees.

The reason the Arctic attracts so much attention is because of the known feedback effect from declining sea ice where a reduction is reflective ice cover and an increase in dark, absorptive oceans means much less solar radiation is reflected back into space, instead being absorbed into the Arctic ocean and exacerbating the warming.

The big problem at the moment is that Arctic sea ice is collapsing at an outstanding rate decades before predicted by climate models.

At any rate, even if you discount the fact that the polar spheres are very different regions with very different dynamics, the fact of the matter is that even if you look at global sea ice levels there is a clear declining trend:

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

fishardansin said:
The article says that it is inline with predictions of a warming world.

I figured it would, first saw the post on my phone and CBF'd actually looking at it but I have no shadow of a doubt that Nat Geo would do a reasonable job of reporting the issue and the the OP would not have read far beyond the headline. If people DID take the time to read beyond headlines they might not hold such erroneous opinions.

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

And, just for Dan26 's benefit after his long hiatus, here's the last 4 weeks of climate papers. I have a game for you, Dan, explain to us all which of the following papers support your "sceptical" worldview and why

WEEK 39/2012

Potential impacts of afforestation on climate change and extreme events in Nigeria - Abiodun et al. (2012)
Corals record persistent multidecadal SST variability in the Atlantic Warm Pool since 1775AD - Vásquez-Bedoya et al. (2012)
Abrupt change in atmospheric CO2 during the last ice age - Ahn et al. (2012)
Aerosol contribution to the rapid warming of near-term climate under RCP 2.6 - Chalmerset al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
California heat waves in the present and future - Gershunov & Guirguis (2012)
Impact of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice simulations from 1990 to 2007 - Flocco et al. (2012)
Examining a solar-climate link in diurnal temperature ranges - Laken et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Driving factors of a vegetation shift from Scots pine to pubescent oak in dry Alpine forests - Rigling et al. (2012)
Variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past 5,200 years - Olsen et al. (2012)
Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to climate change in the Nigerian savanna - Tambo & Abdoulaye (2012)
Did the Arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts - Hamilton (2012)
Visibility trends in Tehran during 1958–2008 - Sabetghadam et al. (2012)
Soil carbon in the Arctic and the permafrost carbon feedback - van Huissteden & Dolman (2012)
Uncertainties in the global temperature change caused by carbon release from permafrost thawing - Burke et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
An integrated flask sample collection system for greenhouse gas measurements - Turnbullet al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Decadal changes in surface air temperature variability and cold surge characteristics over Northeast Asia and their relation with the Arctic Oscillation for the past three decades (1979-2011) - Woo et al. (2012)
A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609 - Obrochta et al. (2012)
Decadal variations in estimated surface solar radiation over Switzerland since the late 19th century - Sanchez-Lorenzo & Wild (2012)
Evaluating global trends (1988–2010) in harmonized multi-satellite surface soil moisture - Dorigo et al. (2012)
Ocean heat uptake and its consequences for the magnitude of sea level rise and climate change - Kuhlbrodt & Gregory (2012)
A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An update from CMIP5 models - Wang & Overland (2012)
Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? - Txedakis et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Past millennial solar forcing magnitude - A statistical hemispheric-scale climate model versus proxy data comparison - Hind & Moberg (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Potential impacts of northeastern Eurasian snow cover on generation of dust storms in northwestern China during spring - Lee et al. (2012)
Climate-diameter growth relationships of black spruce and jack pine trees in boreal Ontario, Canada - Subedi & Sharma (2012)
Methane Emissions from rice paddies, natural wetlands, and lakes in China: Synthesis and New Estimate - Chen et al. (2012)

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

Trends Arctic sea ice reduction and European cold winters in CMIP5 climate change experiments - Yang & Christensen (2012)
Climate change in a regional context: relative vulnerability in the Australasian skier market - Hopkins et al. (2012)
Trends in the global tropopause thickness revealed by radiosondes - Feng et al. (2012)
Climate change in a regional context: relative vulnerability in the Australasian skier market - Hopkins et al. (2012)
Antarctic climate response to stratospheric ozone depletion in a fine resolution ocean climate model - Bitz & Polvani (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden - Kokfelt & Muscheler (2012)
Toward a physically plausible upper bound of sea-level rise projections - Sriver et al.(2012)
Fraction of natural area as main predictor of net CO2 emissions from cities - Nordbo et al.(2012)
Deducing Multi-decadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis - Zhou & Tung (2012)
Twentieth-century warming revives the world’s northernmost lake - Perren et al. (2012)
Poised to prosper? A cross-system comparison of climate change effects on native and non-native species performance - Sorte et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Maximum late Holocene extent of the western Greenland Ice Sheet during the late 20th century - Kelley et al. (2012)
Climate warming over the past three decades has shortened rice growth duration in China and cultivar shifts have further accelerated the process for late rice - Zhang et al. (2012)
The Reversibility of Sea Level Rise - Bouttes et al. (2012)
The tropical precipitation response to orbital precession - Merlis et al. (2012)
Regional changes in wind energy potential over Europe using regional climate model ensemble projections - Hueging et al. (2012)
Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-Year Solar Cycle, And What It Reveals About Mechanisms - Zhou & Tung (2012)
How well do climate models simulate cloud vertical structure? A comparison between CALIPSO-GOCCP satellite observations and CMIP5 models - Cesana & Chepfer (2012)
A fifty year record of winter glacier melt events in southern Chile, 38°–42°S - Brock et al.(2012) [FULL TEXT]
Is a Transition to Semi-Permanent Drought Conditions Imminent in the U.S. Great Plains? - Hoerling et al. (2012)
Seasonal changes in solar radiation and relative humidity in Europe in response to global warming - Ruosteenoja & Räisanen (2012)
On the linear additivity of climate forcing-response relationships at global and continental scales - Shiogama et al. (2012)
Alpine snow cover in a changing climate: a regional climate model perspective - Steger et al. (2012)
The response of methane and nitrous oxide fluxes to forest change in Europe - Gundersen et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment – a review - Helinet al. (2012)
Radiative budget and cloud radiative effect over the Atlantic from ship-based observations - Kalisch & Macke (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Global runoff anomalies over 1993–2009 estimated from coupled Land–Ocean–Atmosphere water budgets and its relation with climate variability - Munier et al. (2012)[FULL TEXT]
High-resolution interpolar difference of atmospheric methane around the Last Glacial Maximum - Baumgartner et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Uncertainty in the ENSO amplitude change from the past to the future - Watanabe et al.(2012)
How tillite weathering during the snowball Earth aftermath induced cap carbonate deposition - Fabre & Berger (2012)
The impact of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation on maximum temperature extremes - Arblaster & Alexander (2012)
Mitigation of 21st century Antarctic sea ice loss by stratospheric ozone recovery - Smith et al. (2012)
Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard - D'Andrea et al. (2012)
Late glacial fluctuations of Quelccaya Ice Cap, southeastern Peru - Kelly et al. (2012)
Impacts of climate change on primary production and carbon sequestration of boreal Norway spruce forests: Finland as a model - Ge et al. (2012)
A 7000 year record of paleohurricane activity from a coastal wetland in Belize - McCloskey & Liu (2012)

bomberfan11 · Oct 23, 2012

If more open ocean in the arctic is increasing the temperature there melting the arctic. shouldn't the temperature continue to drop in Antarctica with less ocean absorbing the sunlight so Antarctica never melts?

The complete opposite of each other

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

If more open ocean in the arctic is increasing the temperature there melting the arctic. shouldn't the temperature continue to drop in Antarctica with less ocean absorbing the sunlight so Antarctica never melts?<br /> <br />The complete opposite of each other

No, because as the graphic I posted below overall the is a global decline of sea ice, there is a net decrease in the planets reflectivity, meaning more heat energy is entering the system.

BTW - you really should read that article you posted earlier, its quite a good explainer of the issue

Upton Sinclair · Oct 23, 2012

bomberfan11 said:
If more open ocean in the arctic is increasing the temperature there melting the arctic. shouldn't the temperature continue to drop in Antarctica with less ocean absorbing the sunlight so Antarctica never melts?

The complete opposite of each other

And, if I'm reading you correctly, what you are describing there is essentially how an ice age starts - changes in the amount of sun reaching the surface if the planet (due to slight changes in our orbit of the sun) causes ice to grow, which reflects more heat energy back into space and causes the ice to grow more - a runaway feedback effect. The effect is further amplified because frozen oceans lock a huge amount of CO2 from entering the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect reduces. When it warms the opposite happens, slight warming triggers a release of CO2 that causes more warming.

At a very fundamental level the climate is essentially governed by the interrelation of four basic functions; solar input, reflectivity, the gasses in the atmosphere & and feedback loops within the system that amplify the effects of the first three.

So the Antarctic doest go into that kind of a feedback loop because for the last 12,000 years or so incoming solar radiation and CO2 have remained relatively stable, up until about 200 years ago. Now CO2 is higher than its been in 7 million years

bomberfan11 · Oct 25, 2012

Why do the media never mention it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0314/Australias-Antarctic-airstrip-melts.html

Its talking about one spot where it has become soft at a place that has only been there for 4 years. When the rest of the continent has record ice.

"The Australian Antarctic Division will investigate a range of alternative or additional landing sites for fixed-wing aircraft near our three stations in Antarctica." The Division's chief scientist told a parliamentary committee recently that the Arctic ice cap was melting faster than almost any other recorded thaw outs, but the pace has been uneven.

Why mention the arctic is this just to confuse people, to make them alarmed?

SaintsSeptember · Oct 25, 2012

bomberfan11 said:
Why do the media never mention it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0314/Australias-Antarctic-airstrip-melts.html

Its talking about one spot where it has become soft at a place that has only been there for 4 years. When the rest of the continent has record ice.

"The Australian Antarctic Division will investigate a range of alternative or additional landing sites for fixed-wing aircraft near our three stations in Antarctica." The Division's chief scientist told a parliamentary committee recently that the Arctic ice cap was melting faster than almost any other recorded thaw outs, but the pace has been uneven.

Why mention the arctic is this just to confuse people, to make them alarmed?

If you think people on this forum are confused, consider the case of mainstream media Journalists.

Upton Sinclair · Oct 25, 2012

bomberfan11 said:
Why do the media never mention it

[

So your argument is that the media "aren't reporting on it" & are supporting it by citing a media article about it? How does that work?

The reason it doesn't warrant attention is that its not a problem, the arctic sea ice is a problem. Pretty simple equation I would have thought! Unless, of course its A CONSPIRACY!!

Did you ever get around to actually reading the Nat Geo piece you posted earlier?

If you put a bit more effort into understanding the issue you'd find it a lot less confusing

NRL Preliminary Finals 🏉 Storm v Roosters 🏉 Panthers v Sharks

Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Club Legend

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Rookie

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Rookie

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Rookie

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Rookie

TheBrownDog

Norm Smith Medallist

Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Similar threads

Log In or Create New Account