I think it's great to see brave people not scared to challenge scientific consensus.
Whilst we are at it, lets also spark debate other apparent scientific "facts" like evolution, whether the Earth is round, and whether it is at the centre of the Universe.
Maybe if we consider people going against the overwhelming weight of evidence and opinion in their field, we could start challenging the existance of the holocaust.
The sky is the limit when we no longer constrain ourselves to the all but undesputable facts as is the evil and destruction we can do to our planet in consequence.
But, alas, scientific fact is not a democracy. We can't make something go away simply because we would rather it was not there.
THE DEMONISATION OF SCIENCE SPOUTED IN THAT FILM EXPLAINED.
Although I agree that healthy debate improves understanding, demonisation does not. This film I think crossed the line in a number of areas.
1) The small amounts of scientific evidence it presented has been all but discraced as a fabrication or deliberately misleading. Much as the evidence of holocaust denial spouted by David Irving which he was found to have deliberately ignored evidence.
2) The film refused to bring their arguments to those that might be in a position to answer them. As such, it was not fit for purpose as a fact finding tribunal.
3) The film was based almost entirely on the logical falacy of association. Ie, almost all scientific consensus say global warming exists. Anti globalistic extremist communists say global warming exists. THEREFORE scientistific consensus is run by estremist communists anti globalisation agenda.
Margret Tsacher's political reasons for supporting GW in the 1970s does not change today's facts. The existance of Green peace supporting GW does not change today's facts. Yes global warming has been taken up by some fanatics. But it has also been taken up by moderates for one reason: it is scientific fact.
4) It tries to bribe people into accepting its views by promising a false world rather than use any actual facts.
5) It correctly pointed out that in the early days, scientific evidence for man made global warming was very sketchy. However, it failed to point out that today's analysis it is all but unavoidable.
It has only been within the last 5 years or so that the evidence for it has become overwhelming. All talk of the dubious nature of the man made global warming debate before 2002, which consisted of 90% of the program, is completely irrelivant.
6) It relied on people's general lack of understanding of the scientific issues hoping the public could not distinguish between good and bad scientific evidence. Although people can often get a good understanding of truth for themselves in general, this has proven wrong for scientific issues time and again (eg Galaleo). Sadly, to appreciate the strength of the evidence such as the famous 'hockey stick', there really is no substitute for a strong scientific undestanding, which very few people actually have.
7) It completely ignored all the evidence supporting global warming.
If you are indeed a scientist your intemperate tone does you no credit. I suggest that you start by examining the IPCC FAR summary for Policy makers and see what is being claimed:-
"The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded "
If you look at the codification of the terminology in the report you will find that "very unlikely" is defined as a probability <10%. It should be noted that the report does not use the term "extremely unlikely" which implies a probability of <5%. You may wonder why the report does not suggest a ECS lower limit for this more critical probability level and does not give even a <10% probability upper limit. The report goes on to say:-
"Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. "
They have very good reason for their cautious tone and the wide range of the ECS being considered is because of the very considerable difficulty - as they have indicated - surrounding the physics of clouds. To give you some idea of the difficulty this presents an error in the assessment of the thermal effect of clouds of only 2% could have the effect of cancelling or doubling the greenhouse effect of the doubling of CO2.
Only today we have had professors Hardaker and Collier warning against overstating the case and bringing science into disrepute as a consequence.
Anyone claiming to be a scientist that likens others in this debate to holocaust deniers also brings science into disrepute.
Interesting info Cloudman. So if there was an error of 2% in assessing cloud cover and there had been no manmade CO2 (or additional CO2 had little effect) does that mean the temperature could rise similar to what we've been seeing the last 100 years? What's the probability of a 2% error particularly before we had satellites? And now? Is this or similar the basis of Lindzen's scepticism?
I stand by my comparison of global warming with holocaust denial for two very simple reasons. First, every time I've looked at the evidence against man made global warming, they have relied on fraudulent data and deliberately ignored the overwhelming mass of data supporting it. Second, the purpose of distorting the figures is usually for political purposes.
I do acknowledge that for man made global warming denial, the political purposes is largely self interest or personal ego, whist for holocaust denial, the political purpose is usually genocidal. This creates a big moral difference between the two. However, in terms of intellectual dishonesty, they are both almost identical.
Cloud man, your post is interesting because it shows some scientific understanding particularly about clouds.
However, I did not quite understand your problem with the IPCC FAR summary for Policy makers.
very unlikely < 10%. I do not see what is wrong with that. Seems about right to me. And extremely unlikely < 5%. Again, seems about right to me.
'You may wonder why ...'. Not really. I'm not sure how helpful an upper limit would be. In any event from the words 'likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5, very unlikely to be <1.5, it seems to me that the upper limit is probably about 5. And this helps, how?
The point I think you may be trying to make is that you think there is a certain spin shown in the presentation. But this is hardly an issue of substance.
Your cloud aguments however, I think are issues of substance. I suspect that this is the area of your strongest knowledge.
"an error ... in the thermal effect of clouds of only 2% could have [twice the effect of the greenhouse effect]." That may be quite right. However, in my knowledge of physics, accuracies of as much as 2% are very rare. For example, we know the hydrogen line spectrum to within an error of about 0.000000000000000000000001% or something.
Physics is a very accurate subject. However, there is one exception: climate science. But even then, and I might be wrong, I would expect them to do better than just 2%.
By the way, would I be right in saying that one of the main uncertainties is caused by global dimming?
Mulder. I'm not sure assessing cloud cover is the issue. The issue I think is assessing the EFFECT of clouds on global temperatures.
Remember also that our measurments of cloud cover will only affect our projected future calculations. The sun will not stop producing heat simply because we on Earth made a miscalculation.
But your question about the probability of a 2% error is very valid.
If there was some actual SCIENCE behind CO2 based global warming, then I'd expect any and every attempt at denying it to be met with ' please read the article in Nature, volume 234, June 2005 ' or something like that...which could point me in the direction of some definitive scientific results or observations that I could look at and then think ' yes, that makes sense '.
The vast majority of sceptics are people like myself who, even though I read science journals, have never actually seen this supposed evidence for man-made global warming. Of course I know that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' and that in theory it can and does cause warming ( earth would otherwise be some 16 degrees cooler ) , but there's a huge difference between that and a definitive scientific evidence that the few parts per million man has added IS actually causing any warming.
I don't see a single definitive scientific article.....anywhere. I am quite sure if there was one, it would be getting referenced in every single post by CO2 adcovates.
If there was some actual SCIENCE behind CO2 based global warming, then I'd expect any and every attempt at denying it to be met with ' please read the article in Nature, volume 234, June 2005 ' or something like that...which could point me in the direction of some definitive scientific results or observations that I could look at and then think ' yes, that makes sense '.
If you want evidence, I'm happy to point you to some. However, people don't quote exact scientific journals because debate just isn't conducted like that. I agree though, in a perfect world, that would be great for all kinds of debates both in science and all other fields of academic study.
I think I would first point you towards the hockey stick. You might want to read my other subject 'the truth about the hockey stick'. There are no actual journals, but I believe I have summed up the strength of that particular piece of evidence reasonably well. Then, you can go onto respected internet sights or journals and find the info if you want.
Well I'm sorry but proper scientific debate IS conducted like that. People put forward actual scientific evidence.....data, observations, whatever......and others can then see that evidence and weigh it up and scientific debate ensues. And then when a general concesus is reached that science either becomes the new paradigm or is thrown out. That is how science works.
The primary reason why there is so much kerfuffle and hostile argument rather than debate over global warming is that the actual debate process got hijacked by the media and those with a political agenda......BEFORE any definitive evidence ever arrived ( and I'm still waiting for it ). You'd never have that happen over a scientific debate over the mating habits of Emperor penguins, yet the activists have skewed the entire scientific process and personally I think it is a scandal that this has been allowed to happen.
What we're seeing now is not science, it is a ridiculous 'believers vs unbelievers' farce where many people have already made up their minds and do not want to be bothered with little matters such as the real facts and evidence. It's gotten on par with UFOs and chupacabras. Try telling a Puerto Rican farmer that actually what ate his livestock was just a dog. They had a recent case where a scientist who said that was almost lynched, given death threats, and concluded to be working for a government conspiracy to hide the existence of dastardly chupacabras. And its no different with eco-activists claiming that anyone who refutes global warming must be working for the oil companies. Such is the mass paranoia and hype.
Like I've said elsewhere.......where is the actual peer reviewed scientific evidence for CO2 based warming ? As far as I can see, there is currently more actual evidence that aliens landed at Roswell.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cloud Man: To give you some idea of the difficulty this presents an error in the assessment of the thermal effect of clouds of only 2% could have the effect of cancelling or doubling the greenhouse effect of the doubling of CO2. /QUOTE]
Do you have a reference for this? As has been pointed out this isn't very useful to me without knowing what the actual error in the parameter is likely to be.
I believe that the IPCC are stressing the uncertainty regards clouds for very good reasons.
The high degree to which they figure in the thermal picture of the earth – influencing approximately 80Watts/square metre of the approximately 350 Watts/square metre solar heat flux. (The effect of a doubling of the CO2 is about 1 to 2 Watts/square metre).
The precise timing of cloud cover profoundly affects their thermal effect. Broadly speaking nocturnal clouds are a warming influence; daytime clouds cooling.
There is a considerable diversity of cloud types with different physical processes involved in their formation and dissipation. Clouds are responsible for the precipitation processes by which water vapour (the major greenhouse gas) is removed from the atmosphere.
We also have reason to believe that clouds are sensitive to a number of factors such as the number and character of condensation nuclei (which vary considerably between marine and continental air masses), cloudbase temperatures, updraft speeds, fine scale turbulence, entrainment processes of air from outside the cloud, etc. Some of these factors (e.g. the condensation nuclei) which we may very well have inadvertently influenced by changes in land usage, deforestation, combustion, clean air acts, etc., etc.
Certainly as regards their microphysics we do not have any significant historical data. Such things as cloud droplet size spectra were initially measured by the laborious method of capture on magnesium oxide slides and counting by microscope severely restricting the number of such studies. Not until the 1970s did reasonably reproducible optical scattering instruments for this measurement start to become available allowing more detailed examination of clouds droplet spectra to be gathered. Certainly in that era cloud physics was still in many cases working to make qualitative sense of the data it had. The instruments have continued to become more sophisticated but in calculating say the mean square radius of the droplet spectrum (important in the optical effects of the cloud) absolute accuracy of a few % would even now be difficult to substantiate. Laboratory experiments to investigate cloud physical processes are extremely difficult to perform. Ensuring, for example that the turbulence levels in any laboratory experiment are representative of those existing in natural clouds is extremely difficult.
Clouds are affected, through their CCN by physical and biological processes going on at the sea and land surface on very fine scales. The drop splashing processes at the sea surface that are responsible for the production of fine salt aerosol particles that are an important CCN for marine clouds is just one example of how clouds physics is a very wide ranging science.
I look forward to getting a copy of the full IPCC FAR to see what it says regarding the thrust for a better understanding of clouds.
Cloud man. I can see your expertese is definitely clouds and I highly doubt my knowledge will be superior to yours on this issue.
However, I am able to read and learn scientific principles faster than most and there was one thing above all that I did not understand about the arguments you made.
You talked alot about the specific circumstances and variables that go towards making up a cloud; but, for global warming theory, the specifics of one cloud in one place at one time are not really important. What is important is the long term time average values, ie the average of cloud cover. For example, to be crude, a measure like what is the average daily %age of cloud cover during the day over the globe during the day side of the Earth, and what is the corresponding %age for the night side of the Earth.
Then, what is the average specifications of that cloud cover. Thus a whole lot of complicated variables can be averaged to something that can be used to a high degree of accuracy for global warming calculations. It is this AVERAGE value, and the error on that, that really matters.
True, if we want to be more accurate, we might average of particular areas of particular characteristics to give a more accurate local view, but we would still use the averaging process which seems to me likely to reduce the error.
quote:
Well I'm sorry but proper scientific debate IS conducted like that. People put forward actual scientific evidence.....data, observations, whatever......and others can then see that evidence and weigh it up and scientific debate ensues. And then when a general concesus is reached that science either becomes the new paradigm or is thrown out. That is how science works
This is true, and you are exactly correct. This is how proper SCIENTIFIC debate IS conducted: but, this is not how DEBATE is conducted.
What we have here, in this forum, is more of a debate than a scientific debate. In practice, debates rarely resort to referring and debating the principles laid down in scientific journals and their scientific validity.
One problem with debate is that people don't care about dry scientific method. They prefer rasmotaz, catchy slogans and ideas that make them feel better. Many people do not even care about logically fallacious arguments. So a debate is not really fit for purpose of finding truth; only popular truth.
I actually agree a bit with your view of the rediculous debate that is going on. It is kind of "believers vs unbelievers". But the debate you see is not really the debate that matters. Underneath the surface, the scientists were arguing amongst themselves too: questioning, quiriying, measuring, and experimenting. However, what's changed is not the "believers vs unbelievers" mentality of the observable debate, but that the scientists have now reached a consensus that man made global warming is a fact.
It happened in about 2002 or something. Ever since then, they made their point to the politicians, but the politicians did not like the inconvenient truth. So they had to shout louder. Although this left them open to the charge of being "politically motivated", 5 years later, their message has been heard. This changed the observable debate to the point that the whole world is very close to uniting to combat it.
The nature the debate, including the political agendas of the respective sides, has not changed in my view. What has changed is that scientific consensus has been reached and it backs one side.
If you want to engage in proper scientific debate, then you might want to go straight to the journals and start emailing the professors involved. How strong is your scientific knowledge? If you really want to get your hands on the knitty gritty issues and make a contribution, you may need to do some self studying for about 2 years.
I think you would need to be up to speed on the following: A level mathematics and further mathematics; 1st year level mathematics (there was a book by Boas that is absolutely excellent in this. Called "mathemtaical methods in physical sciences"; Thermodynamics; Statistical mechanics; Quantum physics; special relativity; kinetic theory of gases; mathematical models and computer simulation sciences;
Then, you should pick up a book on environmental science. Finally, you should start going for the papers, bringing yourself completely up to speed on the latest develpments, ask questions to your professors about the issues involved. Do a PHD on the subject. And then start yapping away about how global warming has no evidence.
However, once you have done all that, and are in a position to interpret the evidence, I find it highly unlikely you will continue to be a skeptic.
I've just read cloud man's links and also Son of Mulder.
For those reading this not familiar with the links, what is being discussed now is the prospect of altering the cloud structure and cover to counteract the effects of global warming.
Cloud man, from looking at your link, I will agree that cloud changes could affect planet temperatures in theory. But that is only if they are medled with by us. If we do not meddle, the cloud factor, as far as I can see from having read those links, would remain constant.
Medling with them could potentially counteract our medling with the CO2 atmospheric concentrations, ie reduce global warming.
But the problem is that climate science is really not accurate enough to play around with our only planet in that way. Yes they can (in the last 5 years) confirm CO2 from man is making the world warmer pretty accurately. But asking them to take full control of the Earth's atmosphere in that way is like asking a small child who has haggled for the first time with a market vendor to take full control of complex negotiations for a deal between two huge corporate entities.
I'm really not scare mongering when I say that we could get monsoons in England, droubts in the Amazon, and a rain forest in Germany. This transferring of climates from areas able to deal with it to areas not so able would cause famine, death and species extinsions around the globe. The only thing in favour of this drastic solution is that it might at least keep our planet from expelling its methane residues, the ultimate doomsday senario.
I also looked at Lindzen's CV which suggests that he is more than qualified. What exactly is it that he is claimed to have said?
real scientist. but isn't climate change a natural occurance, part of the earths natural rhythm. you were saying something about a "hockey stick" earlier, going back a 1000yrs. we should be looking back 10000 or even a 100000 years when there was probable a rain forest in germany. is it a bad thing that there could be another one, we are going to need it to make up for loosing the amazon
'Real' Scientist .... why is your English so bad? It is not typing errors but bad spelling. l would have thought that someone who professes to be so highly educated would be able to spell correctly.
arcana69. dont knock his spelling, i have had to look up some of the words that he is using in the dictionary. its not realy relevant P.s. i cant spell for toffee and failed me english "o" level twice he he
Originally posted by martin.walesuk: arcana69. dont knock his spelling, i have had to look up some of the words that he is using in the dictionary. its not realy relevant P.s. i cant spell for toffee and failed me english "o" level twice he he
Actually it is relevant and l would like to know his answer.
Arcana69, It may be relevant and it may not (the spelling issue). Some people suffer from dyslexia from which apparently you can draw no conclusions about their literacy level viz. they could be very competent in the field but everytime they write they may make mistakes. Alternatively of course what you seem to be suggesting may in fact be the case viz. the offender is an imposter of some sort.
Originally posted by irlca: Arcana69, It may be relevant and it may not (the spelling issue). Some people suffer from dyslexia from which apparently you can draw no conclusions about their literacy level viz. they could be very competent in the field but everytime they write they may make mistakes. Alternatively of course what you seem to be suggesting may in fact be the case viz. the offender is an imposter of some sort.
The question was relevant. This thread was started by him/her and after l posted he/she continued posting but deemed not answer and you can deduce from that what you will.
