Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Really? Do you think it's never going to run out? Do you think it appears by magic or something?
Yes. No - nor will scientific innovation within forseeable future No - by exploration as with oil but using different technology. |
| |
|
|
Chi Squared and Arcana
Lets get something absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with SCIENTIFIC debate. But this isn't scientific debate, is it?
It's denial. Nothing more, nothing less. There have been skeptics and the skeptics have mostly become convinced when confronted with reality.
If you come to me with a genuine problem with the science, that's great. Stand up infront of the climate science community and do a lecture. But you haven't. You have come accross counterarguments already proven to be false through mathematics and observations you cannot possibly understand. And you have come accross philosophical arguments used to attack all of science as we know it.
The pattern is not uncommon. You come up with an idea (fed to you off a drip from a bad documentary). Your told it's wrong. Your not told why. You don't like that. You resort to philopshy. "What do we mean by 'wrong'? Can there be one objective truth? How do we know that science of today will be fundamentally different from tomorrow?"
All these philosophical arguments have been used to justify evolution denial, flat Earthers and holocaust denial. By resorting to these arguments, in my view, you are placed, same catagory (morally and intellectually) as these with the sole exception of holocaust denial where you are merely in the same intellectual catagory.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
nor will scientific innovation within forseeable future
I don't care how innovative you are - you can't run a nuclear reactor without uranium. |
| |
|
|
OK, I've done some digging and from references such as this I would guesstimate that we have about as much easily accessible uranium as we have oil (in energy terms, not barrels). However, the reference makes the excellent point that the cost of the uranium is tiny in comparison to the cost of the reactor and so very expensive uranium can be economical. In which case I would further guesstimate that the total reserve is probably about the same as coal. I wouldn't really call this infinite, but it is pretty large. Large enough not to worry about. Of course the fuel for breeder reactors is plentiful, but I'm not sure you want all that plutonium hanging around. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist:
Chi Squared and Arcana
Lets get something absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with SCIENTIFIC debate. But this isn't scientific debate, is it?
It's denial. Nothing more, nothing less. There have been skeptics and the skeptics have mostly become convinced when confronted with reality.
If you come to me with a genuine problem with the science, that's great. Stand up infront of the climate science community and do a lecture. But you haven't. You have come accross counterarguments already proven to be false through mathematics and observations you cannot possibly understand. And you have come accross philosophical arguments used to attack all of science as we know it.
The pattern is not uncommon. You come up with an idea (fed to you off a drip from a bad documentary). Your told it's wrong. Your not told why. You don't like that. You resort to philopshy. "What do we mean by 'wrong'? Can there be one objective truth? How do we know that science of today will be fundamentally different from tomorrow?"
All these philosophical arguments have been used to justify evolution denial, flat Earthers and holocaust denial. By resorting to these arguments, in my view, you are placed, same catagory (morally and intellectually) as these with the sole exception of holocaust denial where you are merely in the same intellectual catagory.
Are you overwhelmingly certain you have me in the correct catEgory? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist:
Chi Squared and Arcana
Lets get something absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with SCIENTIFIC debate. But this isn't scientific debate, is it?
It's denial. Nothing more, nothing less. There have been skeptics and the skeptics have mostly become convinced when confronted with reality....
Absolutely, but it's worse than that. There is a well-organized "denialist industry", mostly centered here in the US (especially around Washington, DC), and you UK folks are now getting to see more of its side-effects. It runs active efforts to obfuscate the science, and keep people confused, just at it did for smoking:cancer, sulfates:acid rain, and CFCs  zone depletion [a bunch of the same people are involved.] Start with the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI, often run by people (Jeffrey Salmon, William O'Keefe) who have worked in the petroleum industry.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall_Institutehttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institutehttp://www.marshall.org/For just a few of the key people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer[I've tried to post more detailed discussion, but it's bounced, so this is a shorter one.] |
| |
|
|
quote: Are you overwhelmingly certain you have me in the correct catEgory?
You is obsesed wit da Inglish. Dis ain't no Inglish Forem. Tis a Science forem. If you ain't got no concern with da Science, wy ar yoo ere brov? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by real scientist: quote: Are you overwhelmingly certain you have me in the correct catEgory?
You is obsesed wit da Inglish. Dis ain't no Inglish Forem. Tis a Science forem. If you ain't got no concern with da Science, wy ar yoo ere brov?
Answer the question! |
| |
|
|
quote: Answer the question!
Arcana69, I checked back on your posts and got the impression you were cynical about global warming, irritated with anyone who suggested any of the questions about it were closed, but otherwise I didn't get a sense of what you believed in. There is a significant denier industry which is trying to keep open the scientific debate with meaningless or pointless arguments, and you are perhaps unwittingly supporting it by demanding that all aspects of the scientific debate remain permanently open. |
| |
|
|
What question? There is no more a question as there is substance to anything you say.
|
| |
|
|
As is quite clearly stated by the IPCC in the latest (FAR) report clouds and aerosol remain the biggest question. At the risk of endlessly repeating myself let me remind you of the following:-
Clouds modify the radiative exchange of the earth to the tune of some 80Watts/sq. metre so changes in cover and/or albedo, and/or diurnal timing of the order of 1% would have a significant thermal effect.
Clouds are intimately involved in the vertical transport of water vapour (the main green-house gas) in the atmosphere and are the principle mechanism by which it is lost from the atmosphere.
Clouds are extremely sensitive to many factors, such as the aerosol, that man has affected through the last 100 years or so. It is not therefore valid to assume that the clouds have been a constant factor during this period. No amount of 'averaging' is going to remove a systematic error from this source.
We have no historical data to anything like the required accuracy as to how clouds responded to these changes and we have insufficient historical data as regards aerosol etc. for us to be able to theoretically reconstruct that historical cloud response once we have further researched the cloud mechanisms to the accuracy required for this purpose.
If anyone can cite a peer-reviewed paper that shows how these difficulties have been conclusively overcome can they please post the reference here. Obviously the IPCC would also like to hear about it.
Shutting off doubt and debate in science is unhealthy. If we had taken a “case closed” attitude to classical physics around 1900 on the basis it had been a perfect predictor for 200 years and simply could not possibly be wrong then we would have spent the last 100 years trying (and failing) to sort out black body radiation, the specific heats of solids and the Michelson-Morley experiment.
|
| |
|
|
quote: We have no historical data to anything like the required accuracy as to how clouds responded to these changes and we have insufficient historical data as regards aerosol etc. for us to be able to theoretically reconstruct that historical cloud response once we have further researched the cloud mechanisms to the accuracy required for this purpose.
If anyone can cite a peer-reviewed paper that shows how these difficulties have been conclusively overcome can they please post the reference here. Obviously the IPCC would also like to hear about it.
I think detailed understanding of the following questions would be required before this proposition is taken further. I suspect there are answers to some of the questions. In the meantime, GHGs remain a pretty good probable cause to the current warming. Is there any literature that describes a past rapid temperature increase or decrease whose proposed mechanism is cloud changes? What are the details of the proposed mechanism by which clouds cause rapid modifications to the climate (now that the cosmic ray link is looking more suspect)? What is the state of the literature regarding impacts of reduced clouds on aspects of the climate other than temperature (ie. regional changes, changes to rainfall patterns, changes to temperature/humidity profiles in the atmosphere)? How do they compare with current theories. Do observations of clouds correlate at all with the current warming? What parameters of cloud formation in model studies are suspect, and do the models produce a warming response when they are changed? Is there an anthropogenic link to cloud formations? |
| |
|
|
quote: What parameters of cloud formation in model studies are suspect, and do the models produce a warming response when they are changed?
Unfortunately, all of them. GCMs do not allow for (direct) modelling of clouds or individual weather systems, as they fall below the grid size that the models include. The parameters included for this are amongst the most poorly understood elements of modelling given that some models include clouds as overall warming, others as overall cooling (it depends on the nature and altitude of the clouds, some trap more near surface heat than they reflect by albedo; others are the opposite). Why do you say the cosmic ray link is looking more suspect? Certainly, those working on it do not accept the criticisms that have been made. Undoubtedly it is not yet a fully formed explanation and more experimental work is necessary (and to be undertaken in the next year). Otherwise, the answers to many of your questions are seriously limited due to the lack of quality data over the relativley short time period. Similar problems exist however for large elements of the CO2-aerosol heating-cooling model. "In the meantime, GHGs remain a pretty good probable cause to the current warming." It remains a plausible theory, as do natural variations or some combination of both. |
| |
|
|
Yes I know that GCMs parametrize clouds rather than modelling them directly, but it is possible to construct smaller scale detailed models to test the larger schemes, and even then, the parametrizations do depend on physical parameters that can be tested. If the cosmic ray question is answered next year, let's reconsider next year - I won't hold my breath.
The GHG theory has very good answers to all 5 questions. I think it is only reasonable that the Cloud theory has a go at them first.
|
| |
|
|
I think it is attendant on those that wish to shut down all scientific debate on this subject to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that no such mechanism can possibly have been operating. Let us just take one sensitivity that we know about. The albedo of marine stratocumulus to salt aerosol generated at the sea surface. Latham and Salter suggest that 10cu.m/s of seawater entering the atmosphere per second would modify the thermal effect of marine stratocumulus by the equivalent of doubling the CO2. This may sound a lot but with the sea area being 361 E6 sq. kilometres this comes down to less than 2.5 litres of spray per square kilometre per day. Do we have ocean-wide wind speed data covering the 20th century that can eliminate just this one possible mechanism? I believe not.
|
| |
|
|
quote: I think it is attendant on those that wish to shut down all scientific debate on this subject to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that no such mechanism can possibly have been operating.
I think it is attendant on those proposing a theory to provide evidence against which to assess and test the theory - that is what scientific debate is. Simply stating a method and saying - "have we thought of this?" is not scientific debate. Now I'm sure that some discussion has taken place, although the Latham technique seems to talk more about methods of engineering extra ocean spray to counter GW - can't find many references. |
| |
|
|
quote: Lets get something absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with SCIENTIFIC debate. But this isn't scientific debate, is it?
It's denial. Nothing more, nothing less. There have been skeptics and the skeptics have mostly become convinced when confronted with reality.
Nonsense. I am equally as sceptical of Calder's sunspot theory. I have involved myself in many areas of science where the 'evidence' is minimal. There's a huge amount of anecdotal evidence, for example, for paranormal phenomenon. The actual scientific evidence, however, is very sparse. That does not mean that I regard all paranormal investigators as ' in denial '. I do not take the James Randi approach ( which I think is ridiculous ) of declaring all paranormal phenomenon 'bunk' and offering a $1 million award to anyone who can 'prove' otherwise. That is not science. My attitude to ALL science is ' what is REALLY going on here ? '. And I am not prepared to take the arrogant, smug, self-satisfied approach of those who want a pat on the back from their peers for towing the line. If there is even 0.001% room for doubt.....then that to me is good enough cause to investigate further. THAT is true science. |
| |
|
|
Cloudman Interesting point. quote: This may sound a lot but with the sea area being 361 E6 sq. kilometres this comes down to less than 2.5 litres of spray per square kilometre per day. Do we have ocean-wide wind speed data covering the 20th century that can eliminate just this one possible mechanism?
Let's do the experiment - but as a square kilometer is large let's test a square meter and as I'm short of time let's wait for 1 hour instead of 24. So we're trying to detect 2.5 * 1000 / 1000 /1000/24 =0.000104 ml of spray or at least the expected error of our measurement on 1/10,000 th of a ml. Who brought the measuring stick? If we have some global warming, from the AGW's I understand that storms will increase in strength. What will that do to the amount of spray - increase it I guess. Is that in the models. Or maybe as the sceptics suggest because the temperature gradient between equator and poles becomes less with warming we'll have less strong storms so the amount of spray will be less and we'll have more warming. Is that in the models as well? |
| |
|
|
quote: My attitude to ALL science is ' what is REALLY going on here ? '. And I am not prepared to take the arrogant, smug, self-satisfied approach of those who want a pat on the back from their peers for towing the line. If there is even 0.001% room for doubt.....then that to me is good enough cause to investigate further. THAT is true science.
If science took that approach, we would still be watching apples falling out of trees. By all means keep an open mind, but close off debate for the time being on avenues where there is no substantial new evidence. |
| |
|
New Member
|
Independent Summary for Policymakersquote: Rationale for the ISPM
The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter
authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which
they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the prob-
lem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a
prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably
comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of green-
house gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a
one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.
A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the
IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of
negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their
selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the
scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the
underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.
Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to
whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC
reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their
objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression
that they endorsed the views expressed therein.
quote:
Overall conclusions
The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expand-
ing data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic
mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years,
and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming
trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing
data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other,
more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield
smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been rela-
tively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling
evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of
a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The
hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing
a significant warming of the Earths climate since the start of the industrial era is
credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by
formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly
disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be
decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity,
direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many
of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to
produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not
guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of
freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for
any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse
gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the
uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing
or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and
indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
Haven't read all of it by the section above looks to me a lot more scientific than the scaremongering from self-styled "real scientist" (and the IPCC).
|
| |
|
|
quote: If science took that approach, we would still be watching apples falling out of trees. By all means keep an open mind, but close off debate for the time being on avenues where there is no substantial new evidence.
You are missing the point that I only ever got labelled a 'denier' in the first place because I DARED suggest that AGW 'MIGHT' be wrong. I entirely agree that all one has to go by is the current evidence.....however prone to error it may be. Some have failed to grasp that I'm arguing the purist scientific approach. The approach that would be adopted if the entire matter were a study of the mating habits of Emperor penguins......and the total rigour that would apply. My complaint has always been that that total rigour has NOT been applied to AGW....largely due to the sense of urgency over the matter. Maybe the entire issue pushes purist science to one side. But that does not mean that those who argue for such approach should be labelled 'deniers' or burned at the stake of AGW. |
| |
|
|
quote: Some have failed to grasp that I'm arguing the purist scientific approach. The approach that would be adopted if the entire matter were a study of the mating habits of Emperor penguins......and the total rigour that would apply.
My complaint has always been that that total rigour has NOT been applied to AGW....largely due to the sense of urgency over the matter.
I can see what you are trying to say. But if you argued it from the normal scientific process, then your penguin research funding would have been cut off in 1992 because your understanding would have been deemed to have reached a sufficient level. You would be expected to justify expenditure on any further detailed research. A common argument is that GW research | |
