- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
Science Forum?
15 Aug 2011 00:05 - 15 Aug 2011 15:10 #7
by Sunshine Girl
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Replied by Sunshine Girl on topic Science Forum?
Interesting article for those of you who would actually like to educate themselves in AGW.
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the ... al-warming
Conclusion:
Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. The contrarian arguments raised by Alexander Cockburn lack scientific validity.
This is not to say that Cockburn and other skeptics should not have raised some of the questions they have. Science demands constant scrutiny and the misuse of science, when it occurs, is everyone’s concern. But it is also important to recognize a truth when it has been established. The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there is still time.
Edited: It has been pointed out to me rofllol that I had some sort of default by not posting the article in it's entirety rofllol and only posting the conclusion EVEN THOUGH I did first post the link to the article. Please accept my apologies as I thought people knew how to click on a link and I thought they knew how to read. My fault. :faint: :Whistle
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the ... al-warming
Conclusion:
Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. The contrarian arguments raised by Alexander Cockburn lack scientific validity.
This is not to say that Cockburn and other skeptics should not have raised some of the questions they have. Science demands constant scrutiny and the misuse of science, when it occurs, is everyone’s concern. But it is also important to recognize a truth when it has been established. The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there is still time.
Edited: It has been pointed out to me rofllol that I had some sort of default by not posting the article in it's entirety rofllol and only posting the conclusion EVEN THOUGH I did first post the link to the article. Please accept my apologies as I thought people knew how to click on a link and I thought they knew how to read. My fault. :faint: :Whistle
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 Aug 2011 01:38 #8
by ScienceChic
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Science Forum?
Hmmm, must ponder...
Last year when CG was trying to get me more involved in this site (who knew it would lead where it did?!),
she asked me if I'd consider starting a science thread. I resisted for quite some time, my reason being that not enough members would even be interested in reading about science. That thread in the Campfire now has over 300 replies and almost 3,000 views in 10 months time, and has mostly avoided controversy. You are welcome to post anything science related that you find in there, although discussion on the topic is often lessened than if each topic were its own thread.
I'd love to have a separate science forum, but as PITG says, it's unavoidable that someone will bring up politics or religion. And, in my view, that's okay too, as that can be addressed as well - the politicizing of science is a separate issue and can be addressed thusly concerning each topic (like my thread on the actual continuing controversy over global warming being about the policies to mitigate, not the actual science). Religion and science really should not have any quarrel with one another as they cannot prove or disprove one another, and both provide a necessity (for the majority anyway) for our brains. The overlap between the subjects can actually be a fascinating source for good quality, in-depth discussion as well!
The issue of the general public not being well informed about science issues, especially controversial science issues like stem-cell research, vaccines, cloning, and AGW, and a public forum being an ideal place to bridge that gap is very appealing to me. Everyone must become well-informed about an issue in order to help guide policy toward the most intelligent, rational, and effective solution, and it requires perspectives from all viewpoints in order to balance out the extremes who would implement self-serving, short-sighted, ineffective solutions (in the case of global warming: cash for clunkers, cap-and-trade, delaying action in order to "make more certain by studying further" the science, when it's certain enough that something must be done). There are some who have become quite ardent about this subject (see below), and I believe their viewpoints contain some merit.
It used to be, back before the NIH/government funding agencies existed, that scientists relied on public and private donations to fund their work, and that required effort on their part to engage the public, explaining what they wished to study and how it would benefit the funder and society as a whole. Scientists have become quite isolated/insulated from that process now that all they have to do is convince fellow scientists of the merit of their work for government funding, or show commercial potential to industry, and I believe that while it's benefited society, as better quality science gets funded due to this process (not any crackpot looking for a buck who can merely charm people out of money for their work, although that still happens too), it's also been to the detriment of scientists and the public alike with the greatly diminished dialog/direct communication. So I guess my question is: would isolating science from the Courthouse help, or hurt, this endeavor?
In terms of scientists and policy, I have these for consideration (I've been meaning to post the 1st for quite some time for Rockdoc especially).
http://theenergycollective.com/josephro ... chneider-l
Michael Oppenheimer delivers American Geophysical Union’s first Stephen Schneider Lecture - Scientists, Expert Judgment, and Public Policy: What is Our Proper Role?
Posted December 20, 2010 by Joseph Romm
Ignoring the extreme-sounding rhetoric in this article, I agree that the best science is that which the results will provide the most benefit for society. Science for knowledge sake is important, but less so, than if said research will have a demonstrable impact on, for example, disease eradication, significant breakthrough in understanding, or measurable benefit to society (and sometimes it's hard to know that a line of inquiry will lead to such results, such is the nature of discovering the unknown). And that just publishing an article isn't enough - it's self-serving and doing an injustice to those taxpayers who have paid for it and who will hopefully ultimately benefit from it.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-sci ... gered.html
Scientists must leave the ivory tower and become advocates, or civilization is endangered, says Stanford biologist
August 12, 2011 By Louis Bergeron
I'm not necessarily saying that speaking of science here on a forum must have the end-goal of advocating a certain position, as the benefits of increased awareness and understanding are justification enough, just that advocacy is an integral part too, and if it's included, so should be politicization - if the general public is to become well-informed on an issue and proposed solutions to problems, then the reasons behind one policy over another need to be critically assessed as well for flaws. And a separate science forum without all that would probably get a little boring.
Last year when CG was trying to get me more involved in this site (who knew it would lead where it did?!),
she asked me if I'd consider starting a science thread. I resisted for quite some time, my reason being that not enough members would even be interested in reading about science. That thread in the Campfire now has over 300 replies and almost 3,000 views in 10 months time, and has mostly avoided controversy. You are welcome to post anything science related that you find in there, although discussion on the topic is often lessened than if each topic were its own thread.I'd love to have a separate science forum, but as PITG says, it's unavoidable that someone will bring up politics or religion. And, in my view, that's okay too, as that can be addressed as well - the politicizing of science is a separate issue and can be addressed thusly concerning each topic (like my thread on the actual continuing controversy over global warming being about the policies to mitigate, not the actual science). Religion and science really should not have any quarrel with one another as they cannot prove or disprove one another, and both provide a necessity (for the majority anyway) for our brains. The overlap between the subjects can actually be a fascinating source for good quality, in-depth discussion as well!
The issue of the general public not being well informed about science issues, especially controversial science issues like stem-cell research, vaccines, cloning, and AGW, and a public forum being an ideal place to bridge that gap is very appealing to me. Everyone must become well-informed about an issue in order to help guide policy toward the most intelligent, rational, and effective solution, and it requires perspectives from all viewpoints in order to balance out the extremes who would implement self-serving, short-sighted, ineffective solutions (in the case of global warming: cash for clunkers, cap-and-trade, delaying action in order to "make more certain by studying further" the science, when it's certain enough that something must be done). There are some who have become quite ardent about this subject (see below), and I believe their viewpoints contain some merit.
It used to be, back before the NIH/government funding agencies existed, that scientists relied on public and private donations to fund their work, and that required effort on their part to engage the public, explaining what they wished to study and how it would benefit the funder and society as a whole. Scientists have become quite isolated/insulated from that process now that all they have to do is convince fellow scientists of the merit of their work for government funding, or show commercial potential to industry, and I believe that while it's benefited society, as better quality science gets funded due to this process (not any crackpot looking for a buck who can merely charm people out of money for their work, although that still happens too), it's also been to the detriment of scientists and the public alike with the greatly diminished dialog/direct communication. So I guess my question is: would isolating science from the Courthouse help, or hurt, this endeavor?
In terms of scientists and policy, I have these for consideration (I've been meaning to post the 1st for quite some time for Rockdoc especially).
http://theenergycollective.com/josephro ... chneider-l
Michael Oppenheimer delivers American Geophysical Union’s first Stephen Schneider Lecture - Scientists, Expert Judgment, and Public Policy: What is Our Proper Role?
Posted December 20, 2010 by Joseph Romm
You can watch the lecture with slides online (click here) (if I remember right, it was an hour long - been a while since i watched it) OR see link for transcript of presentation.• The truth is bad enough
• Integrity should never be compromised
• Don’t be afraid to use metaphors
• Distinguish when speaking about your values (as a member of the human race) and when speaking as scientist
• Don’t let fear (of deniers) keep you from working on the most important problems facing society
[Michael Oppenheimer] gave the first “Stephen Schneider Global Change Lecture” at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union last week. The 5 points above are from the end, where Michael asks Steve’s wife and colleague, Terry Root, “what Steve would have advised if he were giving this speech.”
Ignoring the extreme-sounding rhetoric in this article, I agree that the best science is that which the results will provide the most benefit for society. Science for knowledge sake is important, but less so, than if said research will have a demonstrable impact on, for example, disease eradication, significant breakthrough in understanding, or measurable benefit to society (and sometimes it's hard to know that a line of inquiry will lead to such results, such is the nature of discovering the unknown). And that just publishing an article isn't enough - it's self-serving and doing an injustice to those taxpayers who have paid for it and who will hopefully ultimately benefit from it.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-sci ... gered.html
Scientists must leave the ivory tower and become advocates, or civilization is endangered, says Stanford biologist
August 12, 2011 By Louis Bergeron
In an interview a few days before the meeting began, he talked about the urgent need for scientists to take their research results and use them to inform the public about the threat of global environmental collapse. No longer can researchers consider publishing their results in a journal, no matter how prestigious, the end of their obligations.
The once-dominant paradigm of "curiosity-driven" research being the "purest" way to do research is outmoded. "How you judge a good scientist, in part, is by what they choose to be curious about," he said.
It is also critical, he said, that the work ecologists do be of the highest quality and of general scientific interest. Ehrlich said he would love to see prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences flooded with top-notch ecology research with clear connections to the human condition. Calling ecology the most important science today, in light of the environmental crises that are looming ever larger on a horizon that is coming ever closer, Ehrlich said that ecologists have a singular responsibility to get their work into the public eye.
I'm not necessarily saying that speaking of science here on a forum must have the end-goal of advocating a certain position, as the benefits of increased awareness and understanding are justification enough, just that advocacy is an integral part too, and if it's included, so should be politicization - if the general public is to become well-informed on an issue and proposed solutions to problems, then the reasons behind one policy over another need to be critically assessed as well for flaws. And a separate science forum without all that would probably get a little boring.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 Aug 2011 07:19 #9
by Rockdoc
Wonderful. But what they don't tell you is what their conclusions are based on. You need to research the issues surrounding CO2 measurements and the actual data used by IPCC.
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. This then confirms again that our carbon footprint drives global warming.
A reviewer comment by Eric Steig on a Second Order Draft, Chapter 6; section 6-42: states:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
For example, the whole impact of CO2 is not that easy to sort out.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.”
From speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute
Then the matter of the data that is actually used by the IPCC
The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A) . The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.
**An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record, and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
And there are a number of other substantial problems the IPCC manages to gloss over much to the dismay of an increasing number of scientists. I can readily provide that information regarding the lag of CO2 that is claimed, the difficulty in distinguishing between CO2 from fossil fuel burning and natural emission by flora, etc. I.e. the actual science issues.
Recognition of the problems outlined above and many others have led an increasingly large number of leading scientists to become dissenters. Just two below out of the 1000 or more now voicing their dismay.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Replied by Rockdoc on topic Science Forum?
Sunshine Girl wrote: Interesting article for those of you who would actually like to educate themselves in AGW.
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the ... al-warming
Conclusion:
Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. The discussion in the scientific climate change community is about how much anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening at all. The contrarian arguments raised by Alexander Cockburn lack scientific validity.
This is not to say that Cockburn and other skeptics should not have raised some of the questions they have. Science demands constant scrutiny and the misuse of science, when it occurs, is everyone’s concern. But it is also important to recognize a truth when it has been established. The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there is still time.
Wonderful. But what they don't tell you is what their conclusions are based on. You need to research the issues surrounding CO2 measurements and the actual data used by IPCC.
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. This then confirms again that our carbon footprint drives global warming.
A reviewer comment by Eric Steig on a Second Order Draft, Chapter 6; section 6-42: states:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
For example, the whole impact of CO2 is not that easy to sort out.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.”
From speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute
Then the matter of the data that is actually used by the IPCC
The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A) . The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.
**An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record, and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
And there are a number of other substantial problems the IPCC manages to gloss over much to the dismay of an increasing number of scientists. I can readily provide that information regarding the lag of CO2 that is claimed, the difficulty in distinguishing between CO2 from fossil fuel burning and natural emission by flora, etc. I.e. the actual science issues.
Recognition of the problems outlined above and many others have led an increasingly large number of leading scientists to become dissenters. Just two below out of the 1000 or more now voicing their dismay.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.156 seconds
sponsors
