Wikipedia's climate doctor
Oh No
think discussion scientific method is, and the accuracy and reputation
of Wikipedia is also important to many readers
Wikipedia's climate doctor
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, December 19, 2009
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-
01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
or
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
X-Phy
> Although Climate science is itself not strictly on topic for s.p.f., I
> think discussion scientific method is, and the accuracy and reputation
> of Wikipedia is also important to many readers
>
> Wikipedia's climate doctor
> Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
> Published: Saturday, December 19, 2009
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-
> 01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydteglk
One can delete text from an Internet server, but I don't think one can
delete the ice archive at the north pole. I don't know if the
medieval period can be seen in this archive, but if it is the case, it
is the only way to know who is right. That's another instance showing
that authority and majority arguments aren't valid, only observation
and logics is.
--
X-Phy
FrediFizzx
news:1flPngCs...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Although Climate science is itself not strictly on topic for s.p.f., I
> think discussion scientific method is, and the accuracy and reputation
> of Wikipedia is also important to many readers
>
> Wikipedia's climate doctor
> Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
> Published: Saturday, December 19, 2009
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-
> 01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydteglk
Here is some more controversy about climate change and scientific
methods pertaining to it,
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/cru09.cfm
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm
Best,
Fred Diether
X-Phy
> Here is some more controversy about climate change and scientific
> methods pertaining to it,
>
> http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/cru09.cfm
> http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.cfm
"Dr. Kleppner�s committee reached its conclusion based upon a serious
review of existing compilations of scientific research."
That's not the way to go. The existing compilations of scientific
research may contain false figures. New measurments must be made by
an independent team, monitored by some officials, for the erasing of
the medieval warm period alone would be a proof. The method chosen to
investigate the climategate by the APS Council cast further suspicion
instead of light.
--
X-Phy
Ken S. Tucker
> Although Climate science is itself not strictly on topic for s.p.f., I
> think discussion scientific method is, and the accuracy and reputation
> of Wikipedia is also important to many readers
I think it's a good subject, we've discussed it previously in SPF,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/search?hl=en&group=sci.physics.foundations&q=sunspots&qt_g=Search+this+group
Personally I like to gauge the change in peoples attitudes.
> Wikipedia's climate doctor
> Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
> Published: Saturday, December 19, 2009
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-
> 01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydteglk
The problem is still quite subjective, strong evidence supports
the relation of sunspots to GW, but AGW is trickier, and I
definitely do get the impression we're tickling (manipulating)
the data to get a co-relation with CO2, which in the extreme
is the so-called "climategate" scandal.
(Though I might respect Al Gore personally, I think he made
a big mistake getting involved in such a difficult math-physics
problem, as did the Nobel commitee by awarding him).
As you (Charles) suggest, the usual simple scientific method
may not apply to the problem, of GW & AGW, so we should
first agree on a scientific philosophy that does.
> Regards
> Charles Francis
> moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
> braces)
> http://www.rqgravity.net
Seasons Greeting.
Ken
Tom Roberts
> (Though I might respect Al Gore personally, I think he made
> a big mistake getting involved in such a difficult math-physics
> problem, as did the Nobel commitee by awarding him).
I disagree. STRONGLY. Al Gore has not contributed to the science, but he
contributed ENORMOUSLY to public awareness. For a problem like global warming,
with its complex combination of both scientific and political aspects, that was
a truly noteworthy contribution.
Tom Roberts
Jay R. Yablon
news:cL-dnRRJGaG...@giganews.com...
Al Gore has gotten numerous bad raps on the science front. You will
recall how his purported comment about inventing the internet (which he
never actually said) became the butt of national ridicule. Well, from
1986-1992 I was general counsel for the Science and Technology
Commission in New York State Government, personally working on
"pre-Internet" policy issues. This was several years before the
Internet spread like wildfire (circa 1995), and I can tell you from
firsthand experience working with his then-Senate office that there was
no person anywhere in Washington who did more than Al Gore to raise
awareness of the potential of the Internet, and to jawbone everyone in
Congress to support and fund DARPA, university centers, and all of the
other underlying scientific and technological projects which led to the
Internet. There is nobody -- I repeat -- nobody -- who did more than Al
Gore to bring about the development of the Internet, not as a scientist
which was the source of the parody, but as a foresightful political
person who has always kept his eyes a generation ahead into the future
while everyone else in Washington was fixated on the next election and
everyone on Wall Street on the next quarter's earnings. He is now
trying to do the same thing with Global warming. He knows how to
translate information between, and has long been perhaps the world's
preeminent bridge between, the scientific and policy communities. The
man is a visionary, he stays focused on the very long term, and one of
the great tragedies of our time was when the US Presidency was stolen
from him in 2000 and handed to a moron who set the country and parts of
the world ablaze with fires that we are still extinguishing and will be
for years. How different things might have been and almost were...
Jay
Ken S. Tucker
GW == Global Warming, AGW == Anthropological GW,
seem to be the usual acronyms.
I'll try to adhere to Charles guidelines in this post.
On Dec 24, 5:22 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Ok, however, by objective 'scientific method' we have only obscure
definitions to the questions of *what is the temperature of the
climate?*
seems to be necessary to discuss the meaning of "climate change".
Many factors are involved in the Total derivative, in Climate
temperature
change that begins with solving the partials, as in,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_derivative
then the positive and negative feedbacks to get results.
I fear we may be politicizing ill defined science, but I certainly
respect
the developement of good standards, if that's what is being sought.
> He knows how to
> translate information between, and has long been perhaps the world's
> preeminent bridge between, the scientific and policy communities. The
> man is a visionary, he stays focused on the very long term, and one of
> the great tragedies of our time was when the US Presidency was stolen
> from him in 2000 and handed to a moron who set the country and parts of
> the world ablaze with fires that we are still extinguishing and will be
> for years. How different things might have been and almost were...
> Jay
Hi 5, Seasons Greetings,
Ken & Lynne.
FrediFizzx
news:8227fbb9-476e-425e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Hi Ken and everyone,
I really don't much of a hoot about all this global warming nonsense.
However, I sure would like to see a whole lot less smog here in LA.
Reducing smog pollution around the world is a much better idea than
worrying about global warming. And should take care of the GW problem
anywise. Let's clean up the air; if smog is contributing to GW, then
that will be fine also.
As far as Al Gore goes, is he focused on the wrong issue here? I think
so and helping to over-blow the real situation.
Best,
Fred Diether.
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 24, 10:14 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:8227fbb9-476e-425e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Your question requires a prioritization, that is turn depends on your
locality, (NIMBY etc.), Perhaps we're overly concened on AGW
compared to water quantity and quality and air quality, but that
expands the problem beyond AGW.
For example, ancedotally, the control of China using coal as an
energy source will affect the global economy.
Best to you and Lynnette.
Ken & Lynne.
Jay R. Yablon
I have no idea whether this warming is precedented or unprecedented.
The objective evidence says the ice caps are melting, and whether the
reason is actions by humans or a natural variation, that does not change
the fact of ice cap melting. So, let's not talk about "global warming,"
let's talk about "ice cap meting."
I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles,
that the melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels, and
that rising sea levels could bury thousands of square miles of coastal
regions around the world, with serious consequences that we can
reasonably predict by application of scientific deduction.
Now, one could argue that if that is the case, so be it. This is a
natural event. Continents have move over the eons, island have come and
gone, and so to must the coastlines if the ice caps happen to melt at
this time in planetary history.
Well, there have been many natural happenings in history: bubonic
plague, earthquakes, tsunamis, bacterial illnesses, and on and on. The
state of nature leaves us out in the cold to freeze, with no food and no
warmth. We cannot move from one place to the next except on our own two
feet or on the back of an animal, and we sure do not have the luxury to
talk with others around the world on the internet about global warming.
It is only by our ingenuity as a species that we cleverly innovate and
work hard to overcome these natural happenings and create a happier, by
no means perfect, environment for human existence. Around coastal
cities, we do not say "que sera -- whatever will be," we build levies
and take other measures to protect human life and natural assets. We
have developed penicillin, learned to build buildings which can survive
massive earthquakes, implemented systems to detect bad events before
they happen, and fostered innumerable other innovations, all of which
continuously advance the frontiers of human capacity. That, for
example, is what allows people like me to earn a satisfactory living
writing patents.;-) And by the way, I do not overlook that much of what
we invent is also, not a better way to increase comfort and save lives,
but to efficiently kill. It cuts both ways, reflective of the fact that
human beings as naturally created have both good and bad motivation.
If this global warming debate had not become so very politicized and
ideological, then confronted with ice cap melting, we would say there is
a danger here, and just like other threats to the species, we need apply
our ingenuity and take action to avert the danger, and the question of
whether this came about by human fault or is a natural cycle is rather
beside the point. Rather than take action to avert the problem, we sit
around and bicker: "human activity is to blame . . . no it isn't . . .
yes it is . . . you suck . . . no, you are a nihilist . . . no you are a
communist . . . blah, blah, blah." And in the meantime, that does
nothing to address the problem of ice cap melting by taking steps to
slow it down and / or mitigate its consequences.
Look at the AIDS epidemic. Supposedly this stared when someone did
something with a monkey that should not be mentioned in polite company.
And, the demographic groups that tend to be most susceptible have often
been stigmatized in some quarters of discourse. Does that means we say
"to hell with it, this was caused by an unnatural act by one person, and
spread to other people by other unnatural acts, and drug needles, etc.?"
(And, unfortunately, that is exactly what some people said in the
opening years of this epidemic.) No, we say, this is a problem, it
presents a threat, and we humans need to apply our collective
scientific, technological and political ingenuity to try to fix or
mitigate the problem.
We need to be saying the same thing about ice cap melting and ocean
rise. The evidence of that is real, the cause is irrelevant EXCEPT
INSOFAR AS IT EDUCATES US ABOUT HOW TO PURSUE A SOLUTION. Arguing about
the cause simply as a means to engage in smug polemics or create
division between people at a time of challenge is counterproductive to
say the least, and we ought to move on from the bickering to apply all
of our human capacities in all sphere of activity to resolve, reverse,
and mitigate the problem. But, we won't, or if we do, it will be
painstaking and slow, because as a species, I am afraid, we humans are
cantankerous, contentious, dysfunctional, egocentric, and more often
than not looking for political or economic advantage over the next guy
rather than looking to make common cause on common threats.
Happy holidays!
Jay
X-Phy
> The problem is still quite subjective, strong evidence supports
> the relation of sunspots to GW, but AGW is trickier, and I
> definitely do get the impression we're tickling (manipulating)
> the data to get a co-relation with CO2, which in the extreme
> is the so-called "climategate" scandal.
There is a trivial co-relation with CO2. If a piece of wood is
warmed, it catches fire and produce CO2.
--
X-Phy
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 25, 7:45 am, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:c0ae30eb-92f1-4f8a...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
As I understand it, the melting of floating 'sea ice' will not affect
ocean levels, because it's already floating, what could make a
diff is the melting of land ice caps... just a detail.
During the so-called 'Medieval Warm Period' recent archeological
studies of Ellesmere Island have found Viking artifacts that far
north, most likely transported by ship in clear water, yet there
was no significant reports of sea level changes at that time,
that would have been measured on the Thames near London.
That said, I think your thesis still stands.
Don't know Jay, defining 'sea level' is rather difficult as some
places
tend to rise and fall, consider Venice, it's been sinking, well we
shouldn't use that as a sea level ref. so now we go back around
to the definition of absolute sea level.
> the cause is irrelevant EXCEPT
> INSOFAR AS IT EDUCATES US ABOUT HOW TO PURSUE A SOLUTION. Arguing about
> the cause simply as a means to engage in smug polemics or create
> division between people at a time of challenge is counterproductive to
> say the least, and we ought to move on from the bickering to apply all
> of our human capacities in all sphere of activity to resolve, reverse,
> and mitigate the problem. But, we won't, or if we do, it will be
> painstaking and slow, because as a species, I am afraid, we humans are
> cantankerous, contentious, dysfunctional, egocentric, and more often
> than not looking for political or economic advantage over the next guy
> rather than looking to make common cause on common threats.
I don't know, the scarcity of sunspots together with some renewed
volcanic activity in the Phillipines is sending a white xmas to
Dallas,
I'd like to hold, establish standards and then see how things go for
a few years.
> Happy holidays!
> Jay
Seasons Greetings (is more topical ;-)
Ken
X-Phy
> The evidence of that is real, the cause is irrelevant EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT EDUCATES US ABOUT HOW TO PURSUE A SOLUTION.
I agree to all what you wrote, but the except clause is precisely the
case. If the cause is the human release of CO2 in the atmosphere, the
solution is to reduce that release. Yet, there are considerable
interests behind that, since it is about energy, the basis of all the
economy. In this respect, there is not really a common cause, but
several competing providers. It is of general interest to find
alternatives to fossile fuels, but those who draw whealth from them
get a big influence at the same time. So, to return to physics and
the original topic, finding the real cause in an independent way IS
the common cause. If human activity isn't to blame, then other
solutions than the ones we are pursuing now should be searched for.
Otherwise, we should decide, still independently, what is the greatest
evil: forgoing handy energy, or accepting ocean rise. But that is a
purely political issue, not appropriate to this group. In any case,
there is something about what we may all agree: the use of
alternatives to fossile fuels, and it happens that is it also what
reduces the CO2 release.
--
X-Phy
X-Phy
> As I understand it, the melting of floating 'sea ice' will not affect
> ocean levels, because it's already floating, what could make a
> diff is the melting of land ice caps... just a detail.
There is no land at the north pole, only floating ice. It remains
mainly the south pole and Groenland. But the weight of ice make the
land sink, which make rise the ocean level a little.
> During the so-called 'Medieval Warm Period' recent archeological
> studies of Ellesmere Island have found Viking artifacts that far
> north, most likely transported by ship in clear water, yet there
> was no significant reports of sea level changes at that time,
> that would have been measured on the Thames near London.
Groenland means "green land," because at some time there were no ice.
But as GW is now a fact, we should have already observed a rise, which
isn't the case. That thesis is already falsified. Formerly, the
coasts weren't the actual ones, but that is to ascribe to tectonic
motion.
--
X-Phy
Tom Roberts
> I really don't much of a hoot about all this global warming nonsense.
> However, I sure would like to see a whole lot less smog here in LA.
Sure. However it is useful to take a historical perspective: almost every major
city in the world has considerably CLEANER air than it did a century or so
ago. Credit the replacement of wood and coal by oil and natural gas, along with
the advent of sewers. And don't forget the ENORMOUS quantities of horse manure
back then (there were numerous predictions that cities would not survive the
increasing mounds of manure).
> Reducing smog pollution around the world is a much better idea than worrying
> about global warming.
That's like saying that curing your headache is a much better idea than dealing
with an incipient heart attack. Smog is a LOCALIZED problem, whereas global
warming is a GLOBAL problem.
> And should take care of the GW problem anywise.
Not a chance. Local solutions to smog cannot possibly "take care" of global warming.
> Let's clean up the air; if smog is contributing to GW, then that will be fine
> also.
Contributions to smog are quite different from contributions to global warming.
Many of the largest contributors to GW do not contribute to smog at all.
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
> I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles, that the
> melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels,
The arctic ice cap is floating, and its melting won't affect sea level; ditto
for the floating ice around Antarctica. Greenland and Antarctica have huge ice
sheets on land, and their melting will raise sea level. The effect of all that
melting is only a fraction of the expected rise in sea level due to a few-degree
rise in the average temperature of the oceans (due to the thermal expansion of
the water).
> Look at the AIDS epidemic. Supposedly this stared when someone did something
> with a monkey [...]
Not even close. You really should get your facts right before writing something
idiotic like this.
My take on all this:
It is quite clear that the climate is changing, getting warmer than it has been
over the past century or two. It is quite clear this will have dramatic effects
on habitats of polar bears, corals, and numerous other species that are becoming
marginalized. It is also quite clear that this will have major effects on
humans, such as flooding of coastal regions, changing growing seasons, etc.
But the notion that building millions of windmills and photovoltiac systems will
somehow "solve" global warming is OUTRAGEOUSLY naive. No nation or group of
nations can possibly have the political will to destroy their economies in order
to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently to have any real effect. I seriously doubt
that any possible modification of human behavior could have much effect (e.g.
Zero Population Growth is simply not possible in many parts of the world). But
there IS a feedback loop -- I believe that BY FAR the most likely "modification"
will accompany a huge reduction in world population. Precisely how that will
happen is not clear (e.g. wars generally do not kill nearly enough people [#],
though the nuclear arsenals have the potential to change that). Nor is it clear
how the coming exhaustion of oil production will affect it (probably not much).
[#] The flu pandemic of 1918 killed far more people than did WW I.
No war has ever killed more than a few percent of the population.
Read Jared Diamond's _Collapse_ for a chilling account of how human societies
have repeatedly destroyed themselves via resource exhaustion. That is now
happening on a global scale....
Tom Roberts
brad
> To Jay and all.
> >> > I fear we may be politicizing ill defined science, but I
certainly
>
> > I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles,
> > that the melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels,
Google Isostasy. As continental glaciers melt the land beneath them,
being relieved of the weight of ice, rebounds. In fact, the Earth is
still adjusting
from the end of the last Ice Age. The far north of the N.Hemisphere is
still rising.
> As I understand it, the melting of floating 'sea ice' will not affect
> ocean levels, because it's already floating, what could make a
> diff is the melting of land ice caps... just a detail.
Though it could be somewhat mitigated by isostatic rebound. The
plastic
Mantle beneath the Crust will flow back under the continents. Because,
it readjusts in this way you could end up with deeper oceans. The real
problem
is the scale of the readjustment. It is many times the lifetime of
men.
> During the so-called 'Medieval Warm Period' recent archeological
> studies of Ellesmere Island have found Viking artifacts that far
> north, most likely transported by ship in clear water, yet there
> was no significant reports of sea level changes at that time,
> that would have been measured on the Thames near London.
> That said, I think your thesis still stands.
Because Europe, N. America, et al. were rebounding
> Don't know Jay, defining 'sea level' is rather difficult as some
> places
> tend to rise and fall, consider Venice,
That is tectonic, not climatic. Africa is colliding with Europe.
> it's been sinking, well we
> shouldn't use that as a sea level ref. so now we go back around
> to the definition of absolute sea level.
>
> > the cause is irrelevant EXCEPT
> > INSOFAR AS IT EDUCATES US ABOUT HOW TO PURSUE A SOLUTION. �Arguing about
> > the cause simply as a means to engage in smug polemics or create
> > division between people at a time of challenge is counterproductive to
> > say the least, and we ought to move on from the bickering to apply all
> > of our human capacities in all sphere of activity to resolve, reverse,
> > and mitigate the problem. �But, we won't, or if we do, it will be
> > painstaking and slow, because as a species, I am afraid, we humans are
> > cantankerous, contentious, dysfunctional, egocentric, and more often
> > than not looking for political or economic advantage over the next guy
> > rather than looking to make common cause on common threats.
Historically, the Earth has been warmer than colder. Dinosaurs
migrated to and
from the Polar regions on a yearly basis. They lived on Antarctica and
it has
been close enough to its present position that, had the climate been
the same
as now, they could not have lived there.
> I don't know, the scarcity of sunspots together with some renewed
> volcanic activity in the Phillipines is sending a white xmas to
> Dallas,
> I'd like to hold, establish standards and then see how things go for
> a few years.
>
> > Happy holidays!
> > Jay
>
> Seasons Greetings (is more topical ;-)
> Ken
Geologists have known of the rise of CO2 and its correlation to the
Industrial Revolution for ~ 40yrs or more. As I said, the real problem
is
the disparity between our lifetimes and the time it takes the planet
to
adjust to the removal of ice. It is estimated that the planet is
roughly
10000 years behind in its readjustment after the removal of the the
last
great ice sheets.
As the mantle flows back under the continents it must flow away from
the seabeds (or somewhere to the south,but still under the continent)
For instance, during the last glacial period the northern section of
N.
America was under 2 miles of ice, and effectively below sealevel.
Today,
much of that area sits ~700 feet above sealevel. At the same time
the Chesapeake Bay canyon was cut and Florida had Indian artifacts
being deposited at sites now 30ft under water. So how much was do to
tilt of the continent to the north, and how much was removal of
seawater?
So measuring sea level changes during historic times is
an ambiguous tool because you must calculate how much is added
liquid water and how much is the rebound. And you must realize that
the
shape of the planet is changing and with it a consequent change in the
shape
and depth of the oceans.
About the only thing you can say with certitude is that CO2 levels are
higher
than ever and since CO2 will block reflected radiation (holding heat
to the
surface) anything we can do to mitigate CO2 release to the atmosphere
will
help to delay warming.
Brad
FrediFizzx
> FrediFizzx wrote:
>> I really don't much of a hoot about all this global warming nonsense.
>> However, I sure would like to see a whole lot less smog here in LA.
>
> Sure. However it is useful to take a historical perspective: almost
> every major
> city in the world has considerably CLEANER air than it did a century
> or so
> ago. Credit the replacement of wood and coal by oil and natural gas,
> along with
> the advent of sewers. And don't forget the ENORMOUS quantities of
> horse manure
> back then (there were numerous predictions that cities would not
> survive the
> increasing mounds of manure).
I would like to see a reference that might support your comments. Me
eyes are burning whilst I write this. :-(
>> Reducing smog pollution around the world is a much better idea than
>> worrying about global warming.
>
> That's like saying that curing your headache is a much better idea
> than dealing
> with an incipient heart attack. Smog is a LOCALIZED problem, whereas
> global
> warming is a GLOBAL problem.
No, I am saying the main issue should be global air pollution; not
global warming. Ya think the smoggy air from LA, Mexico City, Beijing,
etc. doesn't blow around the world? If that is the main issue, then
there is absolutely NO controversy as far as whether or not man can
actually affect the global warming cycle.
>> And should take care of the GW problem anywise.
>
> Not a chance. Local solutions to smog cannot possibly "take care" of
> global warming.
Air pollution is not just a *local* problem any longer.
>> Let's clean up the air; if smog is contributing to GW, then that will
>> be fine
>> also.
>
> Contributions to smog are quite different from contributions to global
> warming.
> Many of the largest contributors to GW do not contribute to smog at
> all.
Air pollution is air pollution including excess CO2, H2O, etc.; I was
just using smog as a general term for it. Clean up air pollution and
the heck with worrying about global warming. The earth has gone thru
several cycles of warming and cooling without man's help. Even if GW is
or is not man made, we will just have to adjust.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken S. Tucker
((My Son-in-law and his wife are specialized geological engineers,
I'm a student of geology)).
On Dec 25, 9:04 pm, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 3:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:> To Jay and all.
>
> > >> > I fear we may be politicizing ill defined science, but I
> certainly
>
> > let's talk about "ice cap meting."
>
> > > I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles,
> > > that the melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels,
>
> Google Isostasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy
I guess you mean subduction, I posed a severe example.
Yes, we (wife and I) are trying to understand this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf
It appears as evidence of rising sea levels for long ago.
Interesting that the density of H2O is maxed at ~4C, so heating
the ocean from 1C to 4C should lower sea levels.
> So measuring sea level changes during historic times is
> an ambiguous tool because you must calculate how much is added
> liquid water and how much is the rebound. And you must realize that
> the
> shape of the planet is changing and with it a consequent change in the
> shape
> and depth of the oceans.
>
> About the only thing you can say with certitude is that CO2 levels are
> higher
> than ever and since CO2 will block reflected radiation (holding heat
> to the
> surface) anything we can do to mitigate CO2 release to the atmosphere
> will
> help to delay warming.
Ok, but to what extent?
H2O is also a so-called Green House Gas, shall we mitigate
irrigation including watering our lawns?
Huge sprinklers are deployed world wide pumping H2O vapor into
the atmosphere via atomizing, vaporizing and evaporation, for
agriculture. That causes humidity levels at low altitudes, trapping
the infared release of heat-waves, but again to what extent?
Regards
Ken
Ilja
It leads to spending billions of $ for probably nothing in return.
The most important result will be the political one: Strengthening of
the
state. For this purpose, every crisis is useful. The war on climate
change is the moral equivalent of war which is necessary to control
society.
It is also useful to raise guilt feelings: Everybody creates some CO2,
so
everybody is guilty in the climate change. By supporting your
government
fighting against climate change with your tax dollars, you can
decrease
your guilt. That's all big government needs.
X-Phy
> Geologists have known of the rise of CO2 and its correlation to the
> Industrial Revolution for ~ 40yrs or more.
And here we get back to the scientific method. A correlation doesn't
mean a causal relation. In that case, there may be two different
causes, and not even a common cause. Such spurious argument can
impress an unaware audience, but we as scientists should be very
careful. A time span of 40 years for a planet living in ages of the
order of billions years is not even anecdotic.
> About the only thing you can say with certitude is that CO2 levels are higher than ever
Modulo the erasure of some period.
> and since CO2 will block reflected radiation (holding heat to the surface) anything we can do to mitigate CO2 release to the atmosphere will help to delay warming.
Again, that is bad practice. We need a calculation of the order of
magnitude of this effect, and to compare it with other natural
effects, especially solar activity. Another valid inference is that
since there have been warm periods with less CO2, it isn't the more
important cause.
--
X-Phy
Jay R. Yablon
media such as Newsweek.
In http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/aids.htm they say:
"The AIDS virus may well have jumped into the human race from African
primates and monkeys. Perhaps when monkey hunters or trappers touched
bloody tissue or were scratched."
This is non-specific, and perhaps the best answer is that we will
probably never know exactly how this jump took place.
Jay.
Tom Roberts
> There is no land at the north pole, only floating ice. It remains
> mainly the south pole and Groenland. But the weight of ice make the
> land sink, which make rise the ocean level a little.
You got it backwards -- if the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland melt, the
land there will rise a bit. That will RAISE the sea level elsewhere, because the
rising of those distant lands will displace seawater.
> Groenland means "green land," because at some time there were no ice.
Along the shore. The interior was solid ice when there were Norse settlements there.
> But as GW is now a fact, we should have already observed a rise, which
> isn't the case. That thesis is already falsified.
No. It does not help to just make unsupported assertions like this. The rise in
sea level to date due to GW is barely measurable -- it's the next 50-100 years
that will tell.
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
On Dec 25, 9:30 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:EO-dnRM6c6O...@giganews.com...
>
> > FrediFizzx wrote:
> >> I really don't much of a hoot about all this global warming nonsense.
> >> However, I sure would like to see a whole lot less smog here in LA.
>
> > Sure. However it is useful to take a historical perspective: almost
> > every major
> > city in the world has considerably CLEANER air than it did a century
> > or so
> > ago. Credit the replacement of wood and coal by oil and natural gas,
> > along with
> > the advent of sewers. And don't forget the ENORMOUS quantities of
> > horse manure
> > back then (there were numerous predictions that cities would not
> > survive the
> > increasing mounds of manure).
>
> I would like to see a reference that might support your comments. Me
> eyes are burning whilst I write this. :-(
H2O or CO2 shouldn't cause red-eye. I found using a propane stove
in the house that doesn't have a catalytic converter causes red-eye,
I think that's CO that's doing that, (We use catalytic natural gas
burners (mainly Propane) heaters for back-up heat if electricity
fails).
Complete combustion of the fuel used in power plants is important.
(There is also a sulfur problem with coal plants, that is truly smog).
> >> Reducing smog pollution around the world is a much better idea than
> >> worrying about global warming.
>
> > That's like saying that curing your headache is a much better idea
> > than dealing
> > with an incipient heart attack. Smog is a LOCALIZED problem, whereas
> > global
> > warming is a GLOBAL problem.
>
> No, I am saying the main issue should be global air pollution; not
> global warming. Ya think the smoggy air from LA, Mexico City, Beijing,
> etc. doesn't blow around the world? If that is the main issue, then
> there is absolutely NO controversy as far as whether or not man can
> actually affect the global warming cycle.
Cities are sometimes called "heat islands",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
> >> And should take care of the GW problem anywise.
>
> > Not a chance. Local solutions to smog cannot possibly "take care" of
> > global warming.
>
> Air pollution is not just a *local* problem any longer.
>
> >> Let's clean up the air; if smog is contributing to GW, then that will
> >> be fine
> >> also.
>
> > Contributions to smog are quite different from contributions to global
> > warming.
> > Many of the largest contributors to GW do not contribute to smog at
> > all.
>
> Air pollution is air pollution including excess CO2, H2O, etc.;
That's a problem, Fred, you've classified those as "pollutants".
Niagara Falls pours out huge amounts of mist (H2O), if we decide
to stop the mist, by shutting down the falls, well, do you want to?
> I was
> just using smog as a general term for it. Clean up air pollution and
> the heck with worrying about global warming. The earth has gone thru
> several cycles of warming and cooling without man's help. Even if GW is
> or is not man made, we will just have to adjust.
Yes agreed, that's what I respect about Jay's thesis to.
> Best,
> Fred Diether
Best
Ken
X-Phy
> You got it backwards -- if the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland melt, the
> land there will rise a bit. That will RAISE the sea level elsewhere, because the
> rising of those distant lands will displace seawater.
Not sure. Emerged land is some volume less inside the ocean, and if
the ocean soil rise, it should sink at other places because the total
volume of solid earth is constant.
> > But as GW is now a fact, we should have already observed a rise, which
> > isn't the case. �That thesis is already falsified.
> No. It does not help to just make unsupported assertions like this. The rise in
> sea level to date due to GW is barely measurable -- it's the next 50-100 years
> that will tell.
If it is bearly measurable while GW is measurable, that means that for
it to be measurable as predicted, the future GW should be orders of
magnitude greater than today. That isn't realistic.
--
X-Phy
brad
> On 26 d�c, 17:58, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > You got it backwards -- if the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland melt, the
> > land there will rise a bit. That will RAISE the sea level elsewhere, because the
> > rising of those distant lands will displace seawater.
>
> Not sure. �Emerged land is some volume less inside the ocean, and if
> the ocean soil rise, it should sink at other places because the total
> volume of solid earth is constant.
The weight of the ice depresses the continent. The mantle underneath
must
flow out from under the depressed continent; but, under somwhere else.
The
Bering Land Bridge now lies under ~600 ft. of water. The sealevel
hasn't risen
600ft.
The removal of ice allows the continent to rebound and the mantle
readjusts.
The constant volume/surface ratio of the planet means that some other
area
of crust must subside. The process has nothing to due with displaced
seawater.
Brad
brad
> On 26 d�c, 06:04, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Geologists have known of the rise of CO2 and its correlation to the
> > Industrial Revolution for ~ 40yrs or more.
>
>�A time span of 40 years for a planet living in ages of the
> order of billions years is not even anecdotic.
It was ~40yrs ago that geologists first became aware of this! The
issue was raised
in the 50's when chemists started analyzing the contents of sealed
glass bulbs created by
people like Maxwell in the early 1800's.
> > About the only thing you can say with certitude is that CO2 levels are higher than ever
>
> Modulo the erasure of some period.
You discount limestone deposition? Feldspar weathering and shale
deposition?
Arenaceous sandstones? The geologic record IS the record of climate
and type
(chemical/physical) weathering.
> > and since CO2 will block reflected radiation (holding heat to the surface) anything we can do to mitigate CO2 release to the atmosphere will help to delay warming.
>
> Again, that is bad practice. �We need a calculation of the order of
> magnitude of this effect, and to compare it with other natural
> effects, especially solar activity.
This is certainly true. And then it needs to be cross-referenced to
the pertinent
period of geologic activity. Can you explain the snowball Earth via
solar activity?
Or intense volcanism related to continental breakup? Or some
combination?
Or does the solar system pass through dust clouds during its galactic
orbit?
And then why the subsequent thaw?
These are questions that leave geologists to conclude that we are
living during
an abnormal cool period of our planets lifecycle. Hence, the interest
in the CO2
cycle.
>�Another valid inference is that
> since there have been warm periods with less CO2, it isn't the more
> important cause.
???? What warm periods? The Pennsylvanian Period? What was CO2/O2
ratio? The chemical
signature of the atmosphere is easily inferred by the type of
weathering
and consequent deposits found in the Geologic record.
Or are you referring to the medieval warm period? 400 - 500 yrs
duration?
That's related to what I said before. The real problem is the
disparity between
a man's lifetime and the planets period of adjustment.
Brad
X-Phy
"brad" <lbjohn...@yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:aeba3f74-fa55-4fc4-8626-
d0f089...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Modulo the erasure of some period.
> You discount limestone deposition? Feldspar weathering and shale
> deposition?
> Arenaceous sandstones? The geologic record IS the record of climate
> and type (chemical/physical) weathering.
The original question was whether those data are real or have been
rewritten in the process of "erasing the Medieval warm period" from
the paper records.
>> Another valid inference is that
>> since there have been warm periods with less CO2, it isn't the more
>> important cause.
> ???? What warm periods? The Pennsylvanian Period? What was CO2/O2
> ratio? The chemical signature of the atmosphere is easily inferred by the
> type of weathering and consequent deposits found in the Geologic record.
>
> Or are you referring to the medieval warm period? 400 - 500 yrs
> duration?
The medieval warm perios. If a warm period existed with a lower CO2
concentration, that means the greenhouse effect isn't the predominent
factor. On the other hand, if the concentration was also high, that
says nothing about the direction of the correlation.
--
X-Phy
X-Phy
> The arctic ice cap is floating, and its melting won't affect sea level; ditto
> for the floating ice around Antarctica. Greenland and Antarctica have huge ice
> sheets on land, and their melting will raise sea level. The effect of all that
> melting is only a fraction of the expected rise in sea level due to a few-degree
> rise in the average temperature of the oceans (due to the thermal expansion of
> the water).
Between 10�C and 20�C, the volume of water increase of roughly
1/1000. The total volume on earth is about S.h, where S is the total
surface of the oceans + seas and h an average depth. Due to warming
the depth then varies of roughly 1/1000. For an average value of
depth of 1000 m, that gives a raising of water surface of 1m, barely
noticeable. As a comparision, the tide amplitude is of the order of
10m. Yet, this estimation is very optimistic since much water is
between 0�C and 4�C, where it contracts instead of expands, and GW is
nearer to 5�C, not taking into account the crust expansion and the
variation of GW according to depth.
--
X-Phy
brad
> The original question was whether those data are real or have been
> rewritten in the process of "erasing the Medieval warm period" from
> the paper records.
Yes,I guess I just assumed everyone would recognize that article
as an "opinion" written in the financial section; published by a
company
(CanWest Comm) with a vested interest in self preservation. It's in
bancruptcy! How valuable is the opinion of a financial analyst in
scientific matters?
And we all know that context is everything when we discuss anything.
So why is the context of these conversations being discarded? Lawyers
can tell you about jury manipulation; By implying that the words you
see
tell the whole story! When someone attacks the character of another it
usually means he has no valid way to refute the argument.
> The medieval warm perios. �If a warm period existed with a lower CO2
> concentration, that means the greenhouse effect isn't the predominent
> factor.
Agreed. But that doesn't dispel the disquiet that comes with the
knowledge
that it was life that engineered our atmosphere some 600 million years
ago.
And we, after all, are part of the life of this planet; fully capable
of re-engineering
it.
>�On the other hand, if the concentration was also high, that
> says nothing about the direction of the correlation.
It's the self-reinforcement that any change brings about that is the
problem.
If the planet is covered in ice, then albedo is high and it
reinforces that cold
by reflecting into space the energy from the sun. If there is little
ice then the
planet absorbs more energy and it is warmth that is reinforced. If CO2
inhibits
any heat from radiating into space, it only adds complexity that needs
to be
addressed in any climate conversation.
I don't think anyone believes CO2 is the entire problem. Methane is
potent , too!
And cows and termites both produce copious amounts. But, both enjoy a
type of
symbiosis with people.
What kind of planet would we have without an atmosphere? Minor
variations
in the chemical signature of the atmosphere are all we do see.But,
those "minor"
variations seem to have an inordinate effect on the atmosphere. How
many
fluorocarbons were produced and released? MIniscule when you compare
them to the
total volume of the atmosphere. Yet, they had a huge impact. A 500 yr.
period is only relevant when you consider the average lifetime of
people.
Brad
Ken S. Tucker
What do you fella's think about this,
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New
Research Finds."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
"The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters."
We still have the H2O component, in that we're milking rivers
for agriculture irrigation, that increases higher evaporation and
therefore adding humidity. I'm thinking out loud about that.
Fred lives in LA and is more aware of drought than I.
Ken
Gerard Westendorp
http://www.xs4all.nl/~westy31/WorldEnergy/WorldEnergy.html
Gerard
Oh No
>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> (Though I might respect Al Gore personally, I think he made
>> a big mistake getting involved in such a difficult math-physics
>> problem, as did the Nobel commitee by awarding him).
>
>I disagree. STRONGLY. Al Gore has not contributed to the science, but
>he contributed ENORMOUSLY to public awareness. For a problem like
>global warming, with its complex combination of both scientific and
>political aspects, that was a truly noteworthy contribution.
>
>
global warming is science, not political spin. Given that the original
papers instigating the current interest were effectively commissioned by
Margaret Thatcher for political ends, and given the recent climategate
scandal, and given the career dependency of scientists on towing the
party line and on getting published, I don't think it is possible to say
that there is any science here.
Regards
--
Oh No
>> I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles, that the
>> melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels,
>
>The arctic ice cap is floating, and its melting won't affect sea level; ditto
>for the floating ice around Antarctica. Greenland and Antarctica have huge ice
>sheets on land, and their melting will raise sea level.
Even this is less certain than one might think. If the icecaps melt, the
land underneath them will rise, compensating in large part. In the
mediaeval warm period, greenland was green, at least green enough to be
settled by Vikings, but there is no record of change in sea level.
> The effect of all that
>melting is only a fraction of the expected rise in sea level due to a few-degree
>rise in the average temperature of the oceans (due to the thermal expansion of
>the water).
Just how long is it expected to take for deep ocean temperatures to
respond to atmospheric warming?
Oh No
>On 23 d�c, 10:27, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Although Climate science is itself not strictly on topic for s.p.f., I
>> think discussion scientific method is, and the accuracy and reputation
>> of Wikipedia is also important to many readers
>>
>> Wikipedia's climate doctor
>> Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
>> Published: Saturday, December 19, 2009
>>
>> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-
>> 01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ydteglk
>
>One can delete text from an Internet server, but I don't think one can
>delete the ice archive at the north pole. I don't know if the
>medieval period can be seen in this archive, but if it is the case, it
>is the only way to know who is right. That's another instance showing
>that authority and majority arguments aren't valid, only observation
>and logics is.
>
The trouble is that the raw data is not available to most of us, and
even if it were it would doubtless take a fair bit of analysis to
properly understand what it says. We are therefore reliant upon the
objectivity of experts, but the climategate scandal shows that those we
should be able to rely on are in fact not objective at all.
Oh No
>On 24 d�c, 19:12, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> The problem is still quite subjective, strong evidence supports
>> the relation of sunspots to GW, but AGW is trickier, and I
>> definitely do get the impression we're tickling (manipulating)
>> the data to get a co-relation with CO2, which in the extreme
>> is the so-called "climategate" scandal.
>
>There is a trivial co-relation with CO2. If a piece of wood is warmed,
>it catches fire and produce CO2.
In this case the relation is that if the surface of the oceans is
warmed, less CO2 is absorbed.
Regards
--
Tom Roberts
> Thus spake Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> Jay R. Yablon wrote:
>>> I would take as credible, the deduction based on physics principles, that the
>>> melting of the ice caps will result in rising sea levels,
>> The arctic ice cap is floating, and its melting won't affect sea level; ditto
>> for the floating ice around Antarctica. Greenland and Antarctica have huge ice
>> sheets on land, and their melting will raise sea level.
>
> Even this is less certain than one might think. If the icecaps melt, the
> land underneath them will rise, compensating in large part. In the
> mediaeval warm period, greenland was green, at least green enough to be
> settled by Vikings, but there is no record of change in sea level.
It was green just along narrow coastal regions in the south. Most of Greenland's
ice cap was still there (known from historical records of the hapless settlers).
Not to mention Antarctica's. This was before the advent of dikes in the
Netherlands, so it's not obvious that a short (<200 years) and small (<1 meter)
change would be noticed.
Also there is a considerable time lag between an ice cap melting and the land
underneath rising; IIRC on the order of centuries in most models. In any case:
how would land rising "counteract" rising sea levels ELSEWHERE? Nobody's very
concerned about where the sea meets Greenland or Antarctica, the concern is
Bangladesh and New York and all other inhabited seacoasts.
>> The effect of all that
>> melting is only a fraction of the expected rise in sea level due to a few-degree
>> rise in the average temperature of the oceans (due to the thermal expansion of
>> the water).
>
> Just how long is it expected to take for deep ocean temperatures to
> respond to atmospheric warming?
I don't know. Several decades at least (i.e. far beyond any politician's
re-electron horizon).
Note that it does not matter whether global warming is human induced or not, we
and our children will have to deal with it. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the
only effective way to do so is to reduce the Earth's human population by a major
factor. Or the population will be forcibly reduced; that won't be pretty.
Tom Roberts
Oh No
we are talking of volume of ice entering the sea, and likewise of volume
of land leaving it.
>
>
>>> The effect of all that
>>> melting is only a fraction of the expected rise in sea level due to
>>>a few-degree
>>> rise in the average temperature of the oceans (due to the thermal
>>>expansion of
>>> the water).
>> Just how long is it expected to take for deep ocean temperatures to
>> respond to atmospheric warming?
>
>I don't know. Several decades at least (i.e. far beyond any
>politician's re-electron horizon).
I was guessing timescales more like centuries, but I could be wrong.
>Note that it does not matter whether global warming is human induced or
>not, we and our children will have to deal with it.
Indeed. Just so long as it is not merely a part of the sunspot cycle,
and actually set to reverse. Strange things are happening to the solar
magnetic field, which could be related to the weakening, and possible
flipping of the earths magnetic field. This will affect things in the
upper atmosphere, and I really don't think we have any understanding of
the implications for climate. Another thing is that warming, and rising
C02 levels, are simply part of the ice age cycle. The way things have
been (and as far as I can tell we don't know why) once things get too
warm it triggers the return of a glacial period. In which case the real
threat is cooling, and there is nothing we can do about it.
>As I have pointed out elsewhere, the only effective way to do so is to
>reduce the Earth's human population by a major factor. Or the
>population will be forcibly reduced; that won't be pretty.
I cannot disagree with that, and it underlines my real concern about the
hype wrt global warming. So long as we are fussing about CO2 levels, we
are ignoring potentially much greater problems.
Ken S. Tucker
> Thus spake X-Phy <xphysic...@gmail.com>
>
> >On 24 d c, 19:12, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The problem is still quite subjective, strong evidence supports
> >> the relation of sunspots to GW, but AGW is trickier, and I
> >> definitely do get the impression we're tickling (manipulating)
> >> the data to get a co-relation with CO2, which in the extreme
> >> is the so-called "climategate" scandal.
>
> >There is a trivial co-relation with CO2. If a piece of wood is warmed,
> >it catches fire and produce CO2.
>
> In this case the relation is that if the surface of the oceans is
> warmed, less CO2 is absorbed.
New Zealand is surrounded by water,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3210392/Doubts-cast-on-warmest-decade
Depends how much one can trust 'Tony Trewinnard'.
> Regards
> Charles Francis
> http://www.rqgravity.net
Cheers
Ken
Phil scadden
"analysis" (and others) and believe the claims are true. The
"climategate" emails do not in fact the allegations made about them but
to determine this you need context which is much harder to determine.
Nevertheless, this has been provided at many other sites (eg
RealClimate) - did you bother to look or did this ignorant comment
simply comply with your own stated views that AGW is a Thatcher
invention? Your complaints that the data is unavailable is also a
denialist beat-up. There have been extraordinary efforts to make the raw
data pertaining to climate publically available, as well as the normal
scientific channel (ask the scientist who collected the data for it).
You are a moderator, so if you say so then discussion of scientific
method is fine but on the basis of some ignorant editorial blowing wind
- I dont think so.
Oh No
>Charles, I am extremely disappointed that you should read Solomon's
>"analysis" (and others) and believe the claims are true. The
>"climategate" emails do not in fact the allegations made about them but
>to determine this you need context which is much harder to determine.
>Nevertheless, this has been provided at many other sites (eg
>RealClimate) - did you bother to look or did this ignorant comment
>simply comply with your own stated views that AGW is a Thatcher
>invention? Your complaints that the data is unavailable is also a
>denialist beat-up. There have been extraordinary efforts to make the
>raw data pertaining to climate publically available, as well as the
>normal scientific channel (ask the scientist who collected the data for
>it).
>
Some of the quotes from emails revealed by climategate are utterly
damning, regardless of context. In the circumstances, the RealClimate
website appears to be among the most unreliable and biassed of sources.
The funding Thatcher put into "proving" her hobbyhorse is a matter of
historical record. I have looked as far as possible into the quality of
data, and find that there simply is not enough to reach any reliable
conclusion, except that I am fairly certain that the oceans absorb CO2
far more rapidly than climate scientists have claimed, and that the
atmospheric CO2 level is determined principally by the surface
temperature of the ocean, not from any anthropogenic cause (I had come
to this conclusion from data before this result was recently
publicised).
Broadly speaking I would say that the state of the science is that we
simply don't know enough to say very much. This leads me to mistrust any
scientist who professes any strong opinion.
X-Phy
> Broadly speaking I would say that the state of the science is that we
> simply don't know enough to say very much. This leads me to mistrust any
> scientist who professes any strong opinion.
Yes, and that's the main conclusion from the scientific method. If GW
is a fact that can be proven, AGW is a mere hypothesis that can't be
proven, although it can be falsified. So, we can't speak of a
certitude, as is done by would-be scientists. That alone casts a
suspicion on the whole topic.
--
X-Phy
Oz
I find this whole area disturbing. IMHO its only too common and its been
seen in BSE, 'salmonella in eggs' and several other 'noteworthy' areas.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-
facts-from-speculation.html
Sifting climate facts from speculation
13 January 2010
Magazine issue 2743. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
For similar stories, visit the Editorials Topic Guide
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may
be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading
Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later
appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent
report - and it turns out that our article is the primary published
source.
The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative
comment for peer review - and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So
how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has,
moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman? We are
entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage
to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked
"climategate" emails.
Further article: P11
Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
--
=======================
Oz
Yes, THAT Oz....
Gerard Westendorp
> X-Phy <xphys...@gmail.com> writes
>> On 14 jan, 11:01, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Broadly speaking I would say that the state of the science is that we
>>> simply don't know enough to say very much. This leads me to mistrust any
>>> scientist who professes any strong opinion.
>> Yes, and that's the main conclusion from the scientific method. If GW
>> is a fact that can be proven, AGW is a mere hypothesis that can't be
>> proven, although it can be falsified. So, we can't speak of a
>> certitude, as is done by would-be scientists. That alone casts a
>> suspicion on the whole topic.
>
> I find this whole area disturbing. IMHO its only too common and its been
> seen in BSE, 'salmonella in eggs' and several other 'noteworthy' areas.
Perhaps this sort of thing happens when science gets mixed with
politics. Discussions on for example the climate on Titan are much more
"scientific" than those on the climate of earth.
However, it would be a bit arrogant of science to ask politics to keep
out of this. The question "Are we about to destroy the planet?" whatever
its answer, is relevant outside of science.
Gerard
John Park
there's enough evidence to answer the question unambiguously; all that
matters is getting it right. But the climate-change issue reaches
out from science into policy--we have to decide whether to act, now, on the
basis of whatever evidence we have.
--John Park
Oz
>Yes this is the point. With a question of pure science, we can wait until
>there's enough evidence to answer the question unambiguously; all that matters
>is getting it right. But the climate-change issue reaches out from science into
>policy--we have to decide whether to act, now, on the basis of whatever evidence
>we have.
Of course, however this should be based on the actual evidence. In the
situation with climate change (as with BSE) politics and 'life style'
tends to dominate and the argument becomes, and I use the words
advisedly, unscientific. That is people select the evidence to suit
their preconceptions/agenda, often actually misrepresenting what
scientific evidence is actually available. In BSE there were very many
examples (soil degradation rate of prions of 100 to 1000 fold per annum
being described as 'negligible' for example). We have global warming
being 'not yet proven' when its absolutely unarguable that we are in an
interglacial and have been for some 10,000 years. Trust me glaciers no
longer cover most of N. America, Europe and northern asia!
The problem is how much is due to man. Now, this is arguable, but what
is not arguable is that china and india (to name but two) are not going
to cut their emissions just to please the west, when their standard of
living is so much less. So what we should be discussing is how to best
cope with the coming warming.
Oh, and on a more sensible level, reduce our energy dependence from
politically antagonistic areas (say russia and the middle east to name
two) by sourcing alternative local energy supplies, preferable in the
near future. That means politically difficult and 'life style' difficult
nuclear power, about which much dithering is happening.
End of rant .....
Jane Gillett
> End of rant .....
Absolutely - and definitely not rant.
Jane
--
Jane Gillett : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : Totnes, Devon.