Posted on 02/01/2006 11:28:41 AM PST by presidio9
As used by the media, "global warming" refers to the theory not only that the earth is warming, but doing so because of human industrial activity.
-snip-
All we have is hypothesis.
-snip-
So how else might an intelligent layperson judge the matter?
-snip-
Well, he could begin by evaluating the claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 0.028% to 0.036% without necessarily taking the measurements himself. This finding is so straightforward, it's reasonable to assume it would have been widely debunked if unreliable.
Next, the claim that this should lead to higher temperatures because of the heat-absorbing qualities of the CO2 molecule. A reasonable person might be tempted to take this finding on faith too, for a different reason: because even ardent believers in global warming accept that this fact alone wouldn't justify belief in manmade global warming.
That's because all things are not equal: The climate is a vast, complex and poorly understood system. Scientists must resort to elaborate computer models to address a multiplicity of variables and feedbacks before they can plausibly suggest (choice of verb is deliberate here) that the net effect of increased carbon dioxide is the observed increase in temperature.
By now, a diligent layperson is equipped to doubt any confident assertion that manmade warming is taking place. Models are not the climate, and may not accurately reflect the workings of the climate, especially when claiming to detect changes that are small and hard to differentiate from natural changes.
Nobody doubts, for instance, that when Bill Clinton asserts global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, he's consulting not the science but a purported "consensus" of scientists. A layman asks himself: What can "consensus" mean if it asserts a judgment nobody is equipped to confidently make?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
1. For that, I'm certainly not authoritative. Try this out: Scientists baffled! (though not as much as you might think) Also, make sure to read the clarification.
Note that atmospheric CO2 still dominates the radiative balance calculations.
2. CO2 from volcanic sources is insignificant compared to fossil fuel burning, and so it doesn't affect the ocean-atmosphere exchange rate. CO2 emitted from submarine volcanoes would get converted to bicarbonate and carbonate ion before getting close to the surface anyway. (CO2 dissolves in ocean water into carbonic acid, which has a low equilibrium solubility and breaks down to bicarbonate and carbonate ion in ratios that are dependent on pH. My chemistry degree was useful for something!)
3. The largest uncertainties in the model are related to cloud feedback effects. This doesn't mean that the models don't include them, it means that the certainty on how clouds will respond to warming is less than the certainty on how other factors in the models work. Clouds reflect solar radiation back up but also reflect outgoing longwave back down, and this is dependent on the cloud type. The uncertainty is two-part: one, whether cloud cover will ultimately decrease or increase in a warmer world, and two, where the cloud cover changes will take place. Regarding the former, the house money is on an increase in cloud cover.
I can tell you haven't been a FReeper for long.
bye bye
SignalCascade
Since Feb 1, 2006
Ok troll wise ass. The first is a NASA site.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
For later reading.
bump
"So, if you could change the climate in your area, what would you do? What do you think politicians should do? I suppose in theory there's a market for eternal summer and one for eternal winter (for ski buffs)."
Since I really love plants and their way of cleaning the air we breathe, I'd want more rain in So. Cal. Most plants seem to appreciate the seasons and so do I. So I'd like to keep all 4 seasons.
I loved 'State of Fear'. Opened my mind up some more. But most of the enivro-activists will only consider skewed data that supports their money machine and Jesse Jackson type extortion of the industrialized world and the USA. They spout the same line - "Oh he's just a nut." While not reading the book or considering over 20 pages of references to articles and books that are from scientists with differing views, yet suggest GW is BS pushed on us for an ulterior motive.
"The researchers have house payments, car payments, boat payments."
You mean they use gas and heating oil??!?! - I'm shocked! Tsk tsk tsk. I hope they don't have any mirrors they have to look into.
Well, you know Ventura County - it's about perfect. About the only thing I would change is having more thunder storms - but it would have to be at a fairly consistent time so I could plan around them.
"I...tend to credit the knowledge of the majority of scientific community on the global warming/climate change issue as accurate."
Yeah, the majority of the scientific community is never wrong... Yeah RIGHT! Then I guess the world is flat after all! I suppose if an 'expert' told you to jump off a cliff, you wouldn't question it and just jump? Well this scientific consensus you believe in is telling you to jump off the cliff - have at it. I'll take the trail down to the shore myself.
Driving my car may be preventing the next Little Ice Age, the last occurring during the Middle Ages and well before industialization.
Why doesn't the media mention that?
Just wondering.
My response should not be construed as indicating that I believe that the majority of the scientific community "is never wrong". On the issue of climate change, I do believe that the majority viewpoint that the currently-observed warming trend, particularly the warming beginning in the 1980s, is strongly related to human activities.
You should read the lecture by Michael Crichton linked on post #3. It might help you to have doubts when you hear the words "the majority of the scientific community". Usually it is spouted when there is a political or sociological motive without facts or a proof to back it up. In other words - JUNK SCIENCE!
Many grants are issued for scientists to come up with results to match the granters desires. No real scientist would skew tests to achieve a desired conclusion. It appears that 'real' scientists are a rare breed indeed these days.
Thanks for the link!!! Excellent! Crichton's amazing! Have you read 'State of Fear'? I loved it.
Take a good hard look at post #12 also.
I've read it. Want to know how much he's wrong?
Michael Crichton's State of Confusion
Michael Crichton's State of Confusion II: Return to the Science
I'll get my science from scientists, thank you.
The warming trend within a stable interglacial driven by changes in atmospheric gases is dissimilar from the operative processes affecting glacials and interglacials.
As for the Medieval Warm Period, no one disputes (even the skeptics) that the current temperatures are at least as warm globally as the MWP, and that the currently observed warming trend exceeds the warming trend into the MWP by about 3x.
I've read this before. There are some interesting phrases here such as:
"including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can)"
&
"Our current (best guess)"
The model's results are derived from guesses and estimates.
My brother is a scientist that continuously deals with scientists and granters that ignore data that disputes and even disproves their pre-conceived and hoped for results. Most in the scientific community are more interested in maintaining their funding than finding the truth.
"I'll get my science from scientists, thank you."
- Those that cherry-pick data, while ignoring any data that shows errors in their tests and results are NOT scientists!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.