Page 19 of 19
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 07:15
by greengeek
RetroTechGuy wrote:"Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14"
Gosh, they had precision pH measurements in 1751? Interesting..
I just asked my wife (she's a chemistry teacher) when the pH scale was invented and she said she wasn't sure (yay - brownie points for me and wikipedia for knowing something she didn't...). Turns out the answer is 1909:
http://www.carlsberggroup.com/Company/h ... Value.aspx
Key word is estimated I guess. Still, testing of sediments etc would probably offer some good clues if properly interpreted.
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 08:07
by Puppus Dogfellow
from
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
James Lawrence Powell
Science and Global Warming
To read my essay in The Nation on divestment from fossil fuel companies, click here. For the sources to that essay, see here.
2013piechartBYRed2
I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here.
Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.
Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.
© 2011 James L. Powell E-mail Me
2 out of 10885 in 2013. peer reviewed so not just mass appeal. but again, spin how you like. your watts site has already been addressed:
over 99 percent at last study (nice try with the three percent) (and a bit specialized for the (as back up) ad populum criticism. going to add an ad hominem to powell as well?)
personally, though you may not believe me, i despise politics. i really do. but the right with its blatant hypocrisy sometimes provokes a response from me.
i've made my point and rest my case. it's immaterial to me whether you can see it. you see, i've been down this road before, although with entirely different topics (largely what animal would kill what other animal in a fight. sort of ridiculous, but occasionally educational.) i know when it just becomes repetition and who gets the last word. and i know how tiresome being mired in that stuff can be. it becomes the hands on hands game, who gets the last word in the little bubble.
just for the record, though, inventing words and things and ideas is what we humans do. it's called progress, retrotech. i honestly do not care about your opinion with regard to this, and it's not just because of the watts site or the over 99 percent of peer reviewed articles that disagree with you. it's because it simply doesn't matter.
so, no hard feelings. when i see you elsewhere on the board, i'll just be seeing another puppy linux enthusiast. good luck with your mission.
[yes, i may fail at staying silent here, but know that i'm trying.]
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 09:42
by greengeek
None of those many scientists you refer to as being believers in anthropogenic global warming were alive on earth the last time we reached one of the climactic peaks that are revealed in the Vostok ice cores. So they are just guessing about what happened last time.
The whole point is still this - there are a number of times in scientific history when believing the weight of common opinion was NOT the road to scientific truth.
Good scientists have the courage to collect and interpret real
data rather than assume a hypothesis is correct just because others say it is.
Peer review is not worth a whole lot when all of your peers are making the same mistakes of assumption.. It is a pity there are so few Russian readers on this forum or else they might be able to offer some of the information that the Russians use to make their own evaluations about AGW. They believe we are already in a cooling phase.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
This is just nonsense. There is already plenty of evidence that CO2 increase LAGS temperature increase by hundreds of years. This is to be expected - as temperature increases so does the overall metabolic rate of lifeforms, likely producing increases in expired CO2. Increased vulcanism is another possibilty if the initial temperature increase was triggered by geological or astrological forces.
The actual methodology of temperature increase is immaterial - we can hazard a guess that the initial temp increase is due to increased insolation, and/or geologic in origin, and/or related to methane release or whatever - the simple fact is that the CO2 goes up AFTER the temperature does.
If the models continue to erroneously conclude that CO2 is the initial trigger then anyone who reviews the literature with that erroneous standpoint in mind will blindly accept the same misdirection as their peers do.
S.IS.O
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 16:28
by RetroTechGuy
greengeek wrote:RetroTechGuy wrote:"Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14"
Gosh, they had precision pH measurements in 1751? Interesting..
I just asked my wife (she's a chemistry teacher) when the pH scale was invented and she said she wasn't sure (yay - brownie points for me and wikipedia for knowing something she didn't...). Turns out the answer is 1909:
http://www.carlsberggroup.com/Company/h ... Value.aspx
Key word is estimated I guess. Still, testing of sediments etc would probably offer some good clues if properly interpreted.
And it was estimated to an accuracy of measurement of 0.01...
So the question again comes down to where the 2 decimal number comes from -- if it is asserted that this is part of their evidence... They are clearly pulling our legs, and hoping that we don't question their assertions...
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 16:31
by RetroTechGuy
Puppus Dogfellow wrote:from
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
James Lawrence Powell
Science and Global Warming
To read my essay in The Nation on divestment from fossil fuel companies, click here. For the sources to that essay, see here.
2013piechartBYRed2
I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here.
Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.
Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.
© 2011 James L. Powell E-mail Me
2 out of 10885 in 2013. peer reviewed so not just mass appeal. but again, spin how you like. your watts site has already been addressed:
over 99 percent at last study (nice try with the three percent) (and a bit specialized for the (as back up) ad populum criticism. going to add an ad hominem to powell as well?)
personally, though you may not believe me, i despise politics. i really do. but the right with its blatant hypocrisy sometimes provokes a response from me.
i've made my point and rest my case. it's immaterial to me whether you can see it. you see, i've been down this road before, although with entirely different topics (largely what animal would kill what other animal in a fight. sort of ridiculous, but occasionally educational.) i know when it just becomes repetition and who gets the last word. and i know how tiresome being mired in that stuff can be. it becomes the hands on hands game, who gets the last word in the little bubble.
just for the record, though, inventing words and things and ideas is what we humans do. it's called progress, retrotech. i honestly do not care about your opinion with regard to this, and it's not just because of the watts site or the over 99 percent of peer reviewed articles that disagree with you. it's because it simply doesn't matter.
so, no hard feelings. when i see you elsewhere on the board, i'll just be seeing another puppy linux enthusiast. good luck with your mission.
[yes, i may fail at staying silent here, but know that i'm trying.]
I didn't see the explanation of where your cited high precision pH measurement for 1751 came from in the above -- I believe that you focussed on that data as your proof.
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 17:14
by RetroTechGuy
Puppus Dogfellow wrote:from
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
James Lawrence Powell
Science and Global Warming
[...snip...]
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
The above is called "projection" -- where an individual or group project their failings onto their opponent. Numerous alternatives have been proposed. It is indeed the AGW crowd who "just can't seem find any possible alternative" to their hypotheses...even when they are right in front of them...
But, of course, that isn't the way science is done. Science always offers an alternative. It's called "the null hypothesis", otherwise known as the "nothing significant is happening" hypothesis. The first step is to disprove that whatever you observe falls within normal variations. Failure to disprove that natural variations explain the observations (which are a precedent, and establish limits for "significance") leaves that hypothesis on the table.
Occam's Razor tells the viewer to accept the simplest hypothesis -- which is in this case, the null hypothesis.
The opponents of the proposed hypotheses are under no obligation to disprove the claims -- to demand that is a fallacy of logic (known as "shifting the burden of proof"). The burden to prove the claim falls to the person promoting the hypothesis. Demanding that your opponent present a different hypothesis is yet another fallacy that you have promoted above.
Beer's law denies that increasing CO2 will have the effects that you claim. Lack of a large heat capacity in the atmosphere denies that the energy is stored in the atmosphere. Measurements of temperature anomalies indicate a flat response for more than a decade (all the while CO2 is increasing).
My favorite claim (seen above) coming from the AGW crowd is that of a: "global temperature".
Temperature is an equilibrium condition. The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium, and therefore does not exhibit "a temperature".
I may have inspired this paper when I publicly pointed out the issue:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/resear ... ltemp.html
A simple analogy presented within:
Individual telephone numbers are both meaningful and useful, while the sum or average over telephone numbers in a directory have no meaning.
Put in a different way, the Earth is not a "black body radiator". Averaging local temperature values, pretending that it is "on average" a black body radiator, fails to produce a physically meaningful number. Deniers of the science behind Planck's law are usually the ones who promote this specious form of argument.
But the bottom line in science is that you eventually need to make predictions. When you do so, you now risk falsification of your model and hypothesis -- it will be tested.
Believers blithely ignore that their models are falsified...
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-w ... -failures/
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 17:22
by RetroTechGuy
greengeek wrote:The actual methodology of temperature increase is immaterial - we can hazard a guess that the initial temp increase is due to increased insolation, and/or geologic in origin, and/or related to methane release or whatever - the simple fact is that the CO2 goes up AFTER the temperature does.
Now if the AGW crowd wants to get "excited" about something, unlike CO2, the methane absorption band does fall within the atmospheric window...
The power of methane as an absorber, and weakness of CO2 as an absorber (starting at the current concentration), indicates that if we feel the need to take an action, we should mine as much methane as possible, and burn it into CO2 and water vapor...
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 19:14
by linuxbear
I can provide some trustworthy data about how many scientists back the current warming trend. I love the intimation that all of the scientists who back this are somehow politically motivated. Perhaps you're right, about political affiliation, but only to the extent that the majority of scientists polled in the USA are NOT conservative. That being said, it is ludicrous to presume that there is some kind of hidden benefit being derived by everyone who backs these conclusions. There is no conspiracy which drives scientists to embrace the commonly believed conclusion that we are warming and that H.Sapiens plays a part in that warming. That being said, here's a reference: You might disbelieve, but I tend to trust NASA a lot more than I do "whasupwidthatthang" or whatever it's called.
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 19:21
by linuxbear
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 20:40
by greengeek
linuxbear wrote:There is no conspiracy which drives scientists to embrace the commonly believed conclusion that we are warming
It doesnt need to be a
conspiracy. It is just a symptom of standard human group behaviour. And it becomes dangerous when you apply a 'need for consensus' amongst scientists.
Let me offer an example: if I ask the question "how many people get their food from a supermarket" the answer may be upwards of 90%.
If I then ask the question "where does your food come from" - 90% of people will likely answer "the supermarket". It is not a conspiracy - just a failure to look closely enough at the available data.
If I asked the same question of the remaining 10% I may get a range of answers eg:
- I grow my own
- My neighbours are all farmers and we share
- I am a fisherman and I get my own
- My mum and dad put it on the table for me
If you don't rate the outliers (the 10%) as offering valid data, then you falsify the overall picture and don't get all the real facts. It is not till you investigate the information provided by these outliers that you gain an understanding that food comes from the soil and the sea.
If 3% of scientists contend that the data is being misinterpreted then that is significant.
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 21:13
by RetroTechGuy
linuxbear wrote:I can provide some trustworthy data about how many scientists back the current warming trend.
Code: Select all
Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
Code: Select all
Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the people or gallery)
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people.
So which fallacy are you promoting? You apparently believe that science is done by popular vote.
97% of the 77 scientists left (i.e. 75 scientists), after applying the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy in order to exclude the balance of the 3146 climate scientists who participated in the survey. Incidentally, the survey was sent to 10,256 scientists (approximately 1/3 responded).
So their report is that 75 of that original 3146 respondents supported their position (it is curious that they would exclude the other 3,000 unless they didn't support they desired position, or that the authors were intent on committing misconduct and fraud)
Meanwhile, 31,487 American scientists reject your claim:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
But, as I have explained repeatedly, science is not done by popular vote nor consensus.
Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2014, 22:06
by RetroTechGuy
linuxbear wrote:There is no conspiracy which drives scientists to embrace the commonly believed conclusion...
No, there are just things like this:
"
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-heretic/
(Judith being a "heretic" implies that the belief is a religion)
"
New York Times publishes cartoon about KILLING ‘DENIERS’ with icicles – Suggests ‘deniers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires’"
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/23/ ... h-icicles/
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/ ... niers.html
Yes, death threats are also part of the Climate Change agenda and methodology. No, it's not a conspiracy, it's a crusade.
Aldous Huxley predicted this in 1958:
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited wrote:Propaganda in favor of action dictated by the impulses that are below self-interest offers false, garbled or incomplete evidence, avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victims by the mere repetition of catchwords, by the furious denunciation of foreign or domestic scapegoats, and by cunningly associating the lowest passions with the highest ideals, so that atrocities come to be perpetrated in the name of God and the most cynical kind of Realpolitik is treated as a matter of religious principle and patriotic duty.
Indeed, the Climate movement has chosen their scapegoats, now to see if they can promote the murder of their opponents, in this way they will silence any any others who might refute them...
Posted: Tue 29 Apr 2014, 03:03
by Flash
My God, man, you wouldn't be on a ranch somewhere in Nevada, would you?
Posted: Tue 29 Apr 2014, 04:19
by Bruce B
The end is near! Change your ways or perish.
(just joking it is not near)
It is about the Energy Czar. Central control of energy.
A primary way they used to justify the making of the Czar was: Alarm people into thinking the creation of the Energy Powers and Authorities was urgent and essential, because cataclysmic disaster is imminent. (and it wasn't, was it?)
In street talk: Play them for chumps.
Well over three decades the alarmist prophecies failed. The Globe has not warmed. Not even one of their models predicted that the ice caps would be expanding in area. But some did predict their disappearance, and of course those predictions were false.
Posted: Tue 29 Apr 2014, 05:23
by RetroTechGuy
Flash wrote:My God, man, you wouldn't be on a ranch somewhere in Nevada, would you?
My god man, you wouldn't be part of a cult that calls scientists "heretics" for their refusal to believe in your religion, would you? (or in Judith Curry's case, for severing ties with the religious cult).
The reader will note Flash's attempt to brand observations as "paranoia", when those incidents actually occurred. The reader will also note that Flash failed to address any of the scientific issues raised -- for the left, the issue isn't about science, but about power (as Bruce noted).
The left believes that it is OK to threaten, intimidate, and perhaps even murder those with whom they disagree... After all, if scientists were free to debate without fear of reprisal, who knows what heretical positions they might take.
Stalin had a useful name for the mindless followers...