A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).
What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.
In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.
This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.
Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.
Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.
One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.
What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?
Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.
r
Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index
Giant hippo fossils discovered in the UK
02 July 2004
Fossilised remains of two ancient hippos have been discovered in Norfolk by scientists at the Natural History Museum and Queen Mary, University of London.
The fossil bones of hippos, hyena, fish and rodents are providing a rare glimpse of the landscape of East Anglia 500,000-780,000 years ago. The fossil remains point towards a unique find of animals living in Britian during a warmer climate, never previously recorded.
Initial excavation work was led by Simon Parfitt, palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum and Dr Simon Lewis, senior lecturer in Physical Geography at Queen Mary, University of London.
‘This is a rare and significant fossil find,’ said Simon Parfitt. ‘To find two hippopotamuses together is very unusual, but to find evidence of the land surface around them is exceptional. The excavation site provides a unique opportunity to study an environment that we believe has never been recognised before and that, if we don’t act quickly, could be lost forever.’
The hippos and other animals would have lived in the early Middle Pleistocene where exotic species, now found only in African savanna, would have roamed the landscape.
The ancient hippopotamus (Hippopotamus sp.) weighed about six to seven tonnes, much heavier than today's modern hippos weighing up to four tonnes. The ancient hippos had prominent eyes that acted as periscopes when under water. It is likely the hippos discovered died through natural causes and their bones show evidence of having being gnawed by hyenas.
The site is approximately 15 kilometres from Norfolk’s present-day coast and insect fossils indicate the summer temperature at that time was 2-3°c warmer than today.
Link
Must've been excess methane from all those large
critters that created the global warming that tossed
the planet into a ice age?
Fauna Global Warming>
Just my two cents.
I supplied the link to Fox because it was at the top of the list when I Googled "$50 light bulbs". I was not implying that you are an avid FOX NEWS fan but, rather, that you just read the first link that came up.
I have no problem with Fox News. I have many issues with the news commentators on the Fox News network.
I voted for Ron Paul ( write-in ) last election. I will vote for Ron Paul again in the coming election. When it comes to politics, Obama has nearly completely mirrored Bush policy. I did not like Bush policy. The other Republican candidates? I would rather keep the known inept as opposed to an unknown inept.
Here is where the problem with climatology lies. Science is not and never will be political. Science researches, gathers the data and reports what the data shows. Those with political ideologies are the ones that try to make science political.
Please, if you will, explain to me why I should believe those that have known financial ties to discredit the scientist and the science for their own financial gains over that of climatologists that have spent years learning their field of study? Trust me. Should those that push the deniest agenda show me the evidence that climatologists are wrong then I will follow the evidence and side with them. When it comes to the status of Earth's future ability to sustain life for us the political is not the correct answer. The scientific answer is. Show me the science that disproves the climatologist and I will support your side. Until then, as I have said, I will err on the side of caution. I will not be so arrogant as to try stop those seeking a life boat simply because I do not believe the ship is sinking! The risk that I am wrong, no matter how small that risk may be, would be catastrophic to all if I am wrong by only a small percentage. When you look forward to the long term ability of the planet to support us then it is best to hedge bets. Since we cannot just summon up a new planet to support us then it always wise to do your utmost to protect the planet we are on, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING. To me, this is nothing short of the simplest of logic. Your opinion and my opinion or anyone's opinion on AGW does not mean squat. Show me the facts that shows AGW is a sham.
Could be since Methane warming would last a few hundred years where as Carbon warming would last a few thousand years.
I read the article in the first link and you will have to provide some clarification for me. What I read states that an increased solar activity causes more cosmic rays that creates the aerosols that aid in cloud formation. Is this correct? The article also states that an increase in clouds causes a cooling effect on the Earth. Is this correct? Then, logically, based on this article, any increase in solar activity will have an increase in cloud formation and the additional cloud formation would have a cancelling effect to any heating due to the increased solar activity. Is this correct? Then, logically, any increase in solar activity will not have any effect on warming the earth until such time that the solar activity is intense enough to start to burn off the WV necessary for cloud formation. Is this correct?
The second link was a very short article and had no citation associated with it. In other words, I could have posted this myself and claim it as true until it is proven false. Is this correct?
The third link gets way out of my league. I lack the skills to extract the data and I lack the math skills as well. You can throw all the formulas and charts you want at me and there will not be any data that I can verify.
The first two links state that they use lab models to simulate conditions on Earth. The second link said he used conditions that "resemble" Earth. And, it appears, he is not even talking about Earth's climate but, rather, a cheaper way of doing things. "This implies that inexpensive ionization sources - as opposed to expensive accelerator beams - can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation." I do not doubt the science but, I have always heard that the Earth is far too big and complex to simulate Earth's conditions in a lab. Is this correct?
Rolling Stone Article...
(And, yes, it's authored by none other than Al Gore, so I know everyone will be interested.)
Discovery Article...
The first two links were directly related to the 1st paper. It was to provide a glimpse of what the paper was about if you did not have access to the original. Your statements with respect to the content are not wrong, but the paper goes a bit deeper ...
My point of posting it was to show that we still have much to learn about our climate and its interaction with the solar system in general. Cosmic rays, sun spots, etc. all play a role that we really don't understand, and don't properly model for at this time. Our Sun is our climate at the most fundamental level.
The answer to your last question is simply, yes.
How do you model/code for that of which you do not understand?
That said, toss this in the mix for fun with respect to cloud formation ~
Extinction and optical depth of contrails 2011
and one from 1993 :)
Satellite remote sensing of the optical depth and mean crystal size of thin cirrus and contrails
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2011) — Stronger ocean currents beneath West Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf are eroding the ice from below, speeding the melting of the glacier as a whole, according to a new study in Nature Geoscience. A growing cavity beneath the ice shelf has allowed more warm water to melt the ice, the researchers say -- a process that feeds back into the ongoing rise in global sea levels. The glacier is currently sliding into the sea at a clip of four kilometers (2.5 miles) a year, while its ice shelf is melting at about 80 cubic kilometers a year -- 50 percent faster than it was in the early 1990s -- the paper estimates.
Link
Thank you, Ossqss.
I am aware that there are many factors that have a play in our global climate and that all of the factors are not know or what their feedback would be. This is the only reason that I am not fully signed on to the AGW claims. I am looking for evidence that would negate the AGW claims. I must be honest with you and state that I have not yet seen this evidence. I have seen many opinions as to why AGW is a sham but, I have not seen the evidence that supports these opinions, as of yet. Simply stating that we do not yet know all of the variables does not necessarily negate the variables that we do know.
The articles on contrails are interesting, even if I do not understand what they are stating. I remember seeing satellite photos of the CONUS when all flights were grounded due to 9/11. What an amazing difference between the photos when regular flights were in effect and during the non flight conditions of 9/11. I am curious. Why would you use contrails as an example of unknown factors concerning climate change when contrails are man made. Would not the existence of contrails only bolster the AGW claims? You are still looking at man made variables that could be affecting the climate. Is this not correct?
I found these links that discuss the absence of contrails over the CONUS after 9/11:
This is not a scientific study but, the answer seems reasonable to me.
Link
This one is interesting:
Link
They exist right here on this board, too.
That's why we are here, to defeat the heat.
(or the lack of such)
Very quite up there.
I took the time to read that article. As many times as I've seen it, it's always funny reading someone trying to defend Jastrow, Seitz, Nierenberg, and their pro-tobacco, pro-pollution, pro-war, anti-regulation, anti-science, anti-logic points of view--and to defend their obvious willingness to sell the credibility they once earned to whoever would pay the most, whether that's Big Ebergy, or Big Tobacco, or the MIC.
Th subject of the article--Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's excellent book Merchants of Doubt--was extremely well-received by a wide range of scientists reviewers for many reasons, among them its depth of research. It's no surprise, then, that Singer et al would be unhappy with it.
I've given out several copies of the book. If I had any left, I'd offer to send you one. But you can order one here.
by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 14 June 2011 Time: 03:50 PM ET
Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.
The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.
The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.
"The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).
The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles. [Photos: Sunspots on Earth's Star]
"This is highly unusual and unexpected," Hill said. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
Link
Get ready for one frigid fall/winter 2011 unless
things pick-up soon.
I remember in April Pat posting solar increase,
Really? Seems pretty quite, hmmm?
I suppose that when the desperately hoped-for cooling fails to materialize, denialists will have to take a different tack. My guess: they'll claim it takes many years for cooling to become noticeable, so we need to wait 10 years or 20 for it to manifest itself.
Ain't gonna happen, folks.
Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.
“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-c ooling-scientists-warming/#ixzz1QTv0f3pL
Some hundreds of scientists would disagree.
Clearly, their ability appears to be on the order of "eagle", rather than just par, especially Singer.
Ah, Easterbrook. He's the one that announced in 2009 that global warming was over, a laughable proclamation made all the more laughable when the following year turned out to be the warmest ever.
So what will Easterbrook and the rest say when the desperately hoped-for cooling doesn't happen?
The thing is, if the sun's irradiance drops as predicted by solar scientists and the planet starts cooling and all the many signs of warming abruptly disappear, I and many tens of thousands of others are prepared to say, "Wow, I guess we really were wrong about everything!". But if that irradiance drops as predicted and the planet continues to get warmer and warmer, will Easterbrook and Watts and Singer and Pielke and all the rest admit that they were wrong?
Of course not; that wouldn't make the Koch Brothers happy at all, and would certainly cost them speaking fees for events sponsored by the Heartland Institute and the Global Policy Institute and the International Conference Of Science Haters.
The four may have done good, solid science in their younger years. But even a cursory glance at their latter day "accomplishments" shows that they all went off the rails at some point, lured away from science by the fame and fortune and immortality offered to those willing to exchange their earlier well-earned credibility for them.
Frederick Seitz (born in 1911) was once involved with the construction of the world's largest particle accelerator. Spent his final non-science years testifying as to the beneficial effects of cigarette smoke, pesticides, and nuclear war.
William Nierenberg (1919) was once professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Spent his final non-science years helping the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute* lie about global warming.
Robert Jastrow (1925) was once chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee. Spent his final non-science years claiming that tobacco smoke wasn't harmful, CFCs didn't harm ozone, and that pesticides did nothing but good for the environment.
S. Fred Singer (1924) was once involved in developing satellites for NASA; spends his non-science years testifying for and consulting with Big Energy. Hasn't authored a peer-reviewed article in over 30 years.
* - Of which has been said the following:
"As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of [the George C. Marshall Institute] in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning."
About the future
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."
Link
Above is what the Heat Biased Claim:
Below is the empirical reality:
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update
New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity:
During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
In his new paper, "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity", Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 - May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.
On average, the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea accounts for about 1/8 of total global tropical cyclone energy and frequency. However in 2010, the Atlantic saw 19 tropical storms, of which 12 became hurricanes as expected (and forecasted) due to the intense La Nina event and continued positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The Atlantic Ocean's accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) corresponded to about 1/3 of the global calendar year output while the Western North Pacific typhoon season experienced a record few number. Seasonal forecasters of Atlantic hurricanes expect a similar but somewhat tempered outcome for the 2011 season, which has yet to get underway.
While the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010, the North Pacific including the warm tropical waters from China to Mexico experienced the quietest tropical cyclone season in at least 40-years of historical records. Similarly, the most recent Southern Hemisphere cyclone season, except for the disastrous impacts of Yasi, was also notably below average. All told through June 27, 2011, overall global accumulated cyclone energy and frequency has settled into a period of record inactivity.
Link
IOL Sci-Tech Article...
This can prevent that.
The hottest temperatures in recorded history scorched large portions of the Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma Panhandle, and southwestern Kansas on Sunday. Amarillo hit 111°, breaking its hottest day-ever record of 109° (set just two days previously, on June 24). A cold front moved through the region overnight, bringing northerly winds and cooler temperatures to the region. However, a new ridge of high pressure will gradually build in this week and temperatures are expected to reach near-record levels again by Thursday, with 102°F expected in Amarillo.
Link
Yes the tunnels:
Our fiends in OZ are all about green, they have there version of the Gulf Stream (EAC)
This would be a wonderful plan for them.
I heard they were building giant convection towers
and using the draft. The tunnels would be better.
I suggest you submit the plan:
They are listening.
Australia Ratifies International Renewable Energy Statute
21 January 2011
Link
Also as long as it is turtle safe, of course.
When sampling the ice cores the CO2 drops off rather
quickly once it gets cold and the next glaciation
continues for 100K years or so. So my question is,
prior to the eemian period of glaciation, CO2 and ambient temperature were high but then it cooled off
and both dropped. At least that is what the cores show
just curious.
Global Warming: the Object Speaks For Itself
Posted on April 25, 2006 by Ira Flatow
Post on Twitter
Share on Facebook
My favorite legal latin phrase is Res Ipsa Loquitur: “the object speaks for itself.”
When a doctor leaves a scalpel in a patient’s stomach, and the patient sues the doctor for malpractice, the doctor can’t say he didn’t have anything to do with it. The scalpel speaks for itself.
The same thing is happening to the earth. Glaciers are melting all over the planet. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are the warmest on record. Global warming? The planet is speaking for itself.
Sometimes, that voice is not so evident as in melting polar caps. Global warming will show up as a different symptom. One piece of evidence, is the strength of recent hurricanes in the gulf. Another is more subtle: mosquitos bringing malaria too people living higher up in mountains where the bloodsuckers never used to be able to survive.
The University of Flordia, through its Explore magazine, points to another one. “Florida sacrificed more than 11 million citrus trees over the last 10 years in a desperate struggle to keep citrus canker from spreading, but all of that effort was wiped out in just a few short hours last October when Hurricane Wilma rampaged through the heart of the state’s groves, spreading the bacteria far and wide.”
The big question is “what is behind this phenomenon”?
I would love to hear a show that tackles this question from a geologic history perspective. Our planet has experienced several periods of warming and cooling. What do geologists believe was behind those non-human influenced occurces, what data support these beliefs and are similar factors at work today? Are global greenhouse gas (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, water vapor) levels higher, lower or about the same as warm periods in the geologic past? Is there close correlation of CO2 and mean (and/or median) global temperature? What other factors do current geologic theory find related to these periods of warming and cooling that billions of years of strata of tell us.
How did the earth rid itself of higher levels of CO2 in the geologic past and can we harness these techniques to sequester CO2 emissions today?
Link
I cannot offer to you the science behind that, other than to say an even smaller percentage of cyanide gas, in the atmosphere, would probably prove most detrimental to us all. I do not believe it has as much to do with the percentage that is measured as to how much that percentage is harmful to us. CO2, in a high enough concentration ( percentage of total volume ), would be fatal for us to breath but, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what percent of our atmosphere can contain CO2 before we see a detrimental effect, for life on Earth. While even a very small percentage of our atmosphere is CO2 and may not seem harmful to life on Earth it does not change the reality. This really is not a very good analogy but, have you ever boiled a live lobster? You put the live lobster in a cold pot of water and slowly increase the heat. The lobster never reacts to the slowly increasing water temperature and is cooked to death while it never struggles to escape the heat. Once you reach a certain point, it is all over and you may never know it. Now, if you drop a live lobster into water that it is too hot for its comfort zone it will immediately try to escape the heat. Slow, incremental increases can have a very detrimental effect on you and you never notice it until.....
cyanide? yikes! has this blog turned into the Apocolypse blog?
Yes, Amy. Things may be worse that we first realized. LOL
1. Just because there is a "gate" does not mean there was a wrong.
2. Should Phil Jones and Michael Mann be proved inept and/or manipulative in the performance of their duties then this does not discredit the research of the many thousands that are doing the research.
I seek scientific evidence that AGW is a sham. You continuously offer me attacks on others and, at best, hypotheticals that are not really related to the debunking of the study of AGW. Give me the undeniable evidence that AGW is a sham. I am more than willing to receive it and I most certainly do hope that AGW is a sham. Until you, or someone else, can convince me that AGW is a sham, I will continue to err on the side of caution. We are not, after all, talking about replacing a vehicle when its symptoms were wrongfully diagnosed and now we have to replace it. We are talking on a MUCH larger scale than this and with considerably more adverse effects on us ALL. Bring me your proof, not your ideologies. If you cannot convince those that are WILLING to be convinced, how do you plan on convincing anyone else?
Did I say, or even suggest, that CO2 is a poisonous gas? No. What I said is that if CO2 is in a high enough concentration it will have adverse effects on us. These adverse effects would include death, in high enough concentrations of CO2. I even went so far as to say that a high enough dose of CO2 killing us is not what we are talking about here, concerning AGW.
"CO2, in a high enough concentration ( percentage of total volume ), would be fatal for us to breath but, that is not what we are talking about here." - Now do you get it?
Scientific American Article...
Bottom line, it's going to get more and more difficult to deny that the climate is changing--though the Professional Denial Industry (PDI) will doubtless pour as many resources into doing so as they possibly can.
Well, yes, it is at high enough concentrations. But no scientists worried about increasing CO2 concentrations are saying that the gas will do its damage by poisoning people, so this is really a moot point.
Jesse Ventura has long been my "go to guy" when it comes to science. OK, that was sarcasm. The reality is that ANYONE and I do mean ANYONE can make a video and hope that people believe it. Example of this? Have you ever been to YouTube?
What is Jesse's scientific evidence that disproves AGW. Does he do anything other than offer his opinion?
well you can advertise at will
you can hammer it everyday on the blogs
you can lobby in congress and try to get laws passed
you can make a documentary and get your edcuation allies to cram it down students' throats
basically it takes a lot of cash
what a waste
Excellent response, Rookie.
As Herr Muller knows if he's kept abreast of things, the Michael Mann issue has very little to do with the phony and debunked "climategate" and everything to do with Mann and the university taking a stand against the endless harassment by the Professional Denial Industry. It's pretty clear to everyone that because of his high profile, Mann--and by extension the university--have been the targets of ongoing attacks by the Big Energy-funded PDI. Endless abuses of the Freedom Of Information Act; endless accusations and allegations that, as quickly as they are dismissed, are replaced by yet more baseless allegations and accusations, kinda like a toilet endlessly overflowing with the worst kind of sewage.
Jones and Mann are, to the best of my knowledge, honest, upright, objective, and conscientious scientists who are faring very well in the face of global-scale smear campaigns. But as you yourself said, even if it were to turn out that both were evil, corrupt, manipulative charlatans out to convert free people to socialism, that wouldn't change the truth of climate change one bit. It wouldn't slow down the melting ice, nor the rising seas, nor the rising temps, nor the extreme weather.
I feel certain that you wanted to make a point. What was it? It takes a lot of cash? In my world, so does everything else. Is your world different?
1. I do not advertise that AGW is real or unreal.
2. I ask questions on the blog and offer to you my openness to allow for you the opportunity to disprove AGW. This does not require, and I do not use, a hammer.
3. I do not lobby Congress. Should you know me better, I ABHOR ALL professional lobbyist and believe that they should be imprisoned on sight! Every last one of them! I would not rule out their executions.
4. I do none of what you suggest here.
I actually did watch it all, in its entirety. I watched it a few months ago. Jesse raises some interesting questions and provides a lot of conjecture but, he does not bring any evidence to the table.
Al Gore made a movie on AGW. Do you believe his movie is factual? He, after all, did bring some actual science into the discussion. Something you can verify for yourself. How much of Jesse's movie can you verify for yourself?
Yes, indeed. You can also keep laying asphalt until it becomes a moot point as to where you place the thermometer.
Since it is man that lays the asphalt and since we know that asphalt will increase local temperatures, then you are on your way towards saying that man's activities have caused an unnatural warming. Is this correct?
Trentberth is the same guy that said to the media that global tropical cyclones are getting more frequent and intense, with certainty, before much study had been done on the matter. (See: Landsea's resignation from IPCC AR4 work.) His work in the IPCC seems to be nothing more than the Trenberth opinion column. Seems that one should try using the scenario of Trenberth comments to media as little as possible.
Plus, if I remember correctly, Trenberth's true area of expertise is well-limited to the tropical Pacific in the study of monsoons.
What concentration of CO2 would be "harmful" or "fatal to breathe"? Hint: near 100%
you can always put a thermometer in a asphalt parking lot and claim the world is burning hot
a semi-coherent response from our Tussin addicted friend....
Closer to 10% ?
Ummm...what?
No, I don't believe you do remember correctly; Trenberth heads the climate analysis section for NCAR, and he's the lead author of two IPCC climate change reports. His expertise--at least as recognized by credible scientists--is clearly not limited to Pacific monsoons (though I'm sure he knows a lot about them as well.)
I have to tell you, I find it almost entertaining that denialists will grant great weight to the words of non-degreed TV weathermen and Big Tobacco/Big Energy shills whose last real science was decades ago (if ever), yet they'll instantly attack a practicing, respected climatologist like Trenberth.
Viewing: 251 - 301
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index