Global Warming Endangered by Hot Air? 503
oldwindways writes "The BBC reports that leading climate researchers are concerned that the tone of speculation surrounding many reports (scientific as well as in the media) could be making it more difficult for legitimate science to make a case for the future. Is Hollywood to blame? Have we 'cried wolf' too many times with global warming? Or is this just a case of some researchers who are not ready to face the truth? Either way, it raises the interesting question of how greater public awareness of Global Warming might be affecting the course of research and vice versa. Not to mention what happens when public awareness is shaped by factors other than scientific findings. This is especially troubling during what some are calling the warmest US winter in years."
What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seeing as how this is the winter with the two coldest 3-week periods (in Anchorage, Alaska) in history - where are you getting the above statement? The US does include Alaska you know...
HA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Skeptics are useful. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lots of people have something to gain by hyping global warming. Politicians looking for power, actors trying to look "caring", socialists making another attempt to weaken the United States.
LOL! The Republicans have weakened the US more in the past six years than the "socialists" could ever have hoped to achieve!
That said, it is indeed important to be sober and accurate about climate change. There have been huge atmospheric composition changes in the past 40 years, in particular, with the measured amount of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing dramatically. There are multiple contributing factors including fossil fuel combustion and deforestation and desertification. At the same time, particulates in the atmosphere have resulted in a decrease in sunlight reaching the ground, and the sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output. That would seem to clearly indicate that the changes in mean global temperature seen especially in the past half-decade are terrestrial in nature. We're not all going to die tomorrow, but the long term trends are concerning.
Re:Skeptics are useful. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ummm, yeah... Assuming the WORST case estimates over the last 40 years that CO2, methane, and NOx have doubled it still accounts for less than 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere [wikipedia.org]. Which means it went from 0.018% to 0.036%. Equivalent to a $0.18 change in a $1,000 bill.
[The] sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output.
While it is true that the sun is now at a minimum [wikipedia.org], it was at a MAXIMUM by 2001. Coincidentally, the temperatures peaked during the 1990s, and are starting to decline [noaa.gov]. Maybe that Mr. Fusion in the sky does have a significant impact?
"Huge atmospheric composition changes" - this is the EXACT hyperbole the original article was talking about...
Re:And the summary is an example of that hyping (Score:3, Interesting)
You've just made a common mistake about science and the scientific method--that the best theory science can offer must necessarily be correct until proven otherwise. When no theory carries the weight of sufficient evidence, then we have no real understanding of what is going on at all. You don't have to "reject every conclusion, ever", just reject those that aren't well understood yet. Skepticism is valuable.
"You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet."
Where did he say that? When real scientists test their theories, they neither expect evidence nor counter-evidence. They only expect data that helps them gain a better understanding and improve their theories. Once again you take the assumption that an existing theory is corrent. A real scientist does not do that.
"If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to."
"If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on."
No you should not! Every theory should be approached with an open mind. We should not blindly assume they are all correct or all incorrect.
"Science is about evidence. Do you have any evidence of any of this happening? Is there any reason to believe you're not making it all up?"
He should answer this himself, but the answer is obvious. That IS how it's done and you should understand that from the name alone. I don't agree with his assertion that it's not science. You don't have to have good working theories to have science, you just have to work at improving through the scientific method.
"I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis."
Since it's your hypothesis, the burden is on you to prove it. Contrary to your post, his was completely reasonable.
Re:And the summary is an example of that hyping (Score:2, Interesting)
That is exactly the kind of hype the parent was talking about. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased recently is a measurable fact. Extrapolation to "OMG trillions of dollars in lost property and droughts!!!111!1one" (and millions dead, whole cities under water, yada yada) is really extreme speculation, based on models. Which generally can't even predict what weather I'm going to have at the end of this week, never mind in the year 2050.
The fact that you're using this wild prediction of trillion dollar losses at some indefinite point in the future to justify spending billions of dollars today is the problem here. Your argument embodies everything that is wrong with the global warming debate. Putting alarmism ahead of solid facts is a disservice to those who believe in global warming, and causes people to discredit everything you have to say, even when some parts may actually be valid.
Just because we tend to be more environmentally conscious as a nation, that doesn't mean that we all automatically throw science and logic out the window, subscribe to the new religion of environmentalism, and all the rabid alarmism that accompanies it. I care about the planet. I don't much care for the amount of misinformation that gets thrown around by people like yourself. Screaming that the sky is falling doesn't further the global warming debate in any meaningful or helpful way.
Additionally, I would just like to point out that the Ozone layer (or hole therein) has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Saying "think of this as the Ozone Layer on steriods" is a completely incorrect, alarmist, and unhelpful non sequitur.
Global Warming Schmobal Warming (Score:1, Interesting)
Speaking of Hot Air (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007
This is the kind of loose cannon crap that they are talking about.
"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic," predicted James Lovelock, a renowned environmental scientist.
That is the kind of overblown, the world is ending crap they are talking about.
Re:And the summary is an example of that hyping (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think that's what I said. That would be a rather absurd to think. The point I was trying to make was that "might be wrong" is not by itself grounds for rejection or loss of confidence in a theory because every theory might be wrong.
When people appeal to the imaginable future scientists laughing at us they never seem to make the argument that future future scientists might laugh at them, and so on.
And, rejecting a particular reason to reject a theory does not imply acceptance, and nowhere did I say it did.
"You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet."
Where did he say that? When real scientists test their theories, they neither expect evidence nor counter-evidence. They only expect data that helps them gain a better understanding and improve their theories. Once again you take the assumption that an existing theory is corrent. A real scientist does not do that.
He did that with the analogy here: "We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago [...]. It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us." Scientists deal with theories and evidence that exists now, not hypothetical future theories that can't be described.
"If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to."
"piece of knowledge", it may or may not be correct.
I did not intend for "knowledge" to have a specialized meaning as something that must not be wrong.
"If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on."
No you should not! Every theory should be approached with an open mind. We should not blindly assume they are all correct or all incorrect.
I wasn't saying that we should do that, I was saying that someone who accepted the "might be wrong someday" test would have to, which would be absurd, which was my point.
"I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis."
Since it's your hypothesis, the burden is on you to prove it.
Obviously I was just being rhetorical here. I obviously have no way of proving or disproving anything about him, which is why I invited him to do so. I did not intend for it to be a scientifically useful hypothesis other than goading him to respond.
Contrary to your post, his was completely reasonable.
Even the "To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance" part?
Re:And the summary is an example of that hyping (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to make a vaguely sarcastic comment about your "putting on shorts" for global warming, and then you played the booby-trapped card.
This always comes up; the global cooling theories during the 1970s were *nowhere* near as widely-accepted and publicised in the scientific community/press. Even the popular press, who were responsible for promoting these theories didn't carry anywhere near as much on "global cooling" than they do now on warming. See this [grist.org] and this [realclimate.org]. And people were considering global warming even back then.
Re:And the summary is an example of that hyping (Score:1, Interesting)
This is exactly why I assume that when I drop a pencil it will hit the floor. Obviously this is a much more well studied, and widely verified phenomon, I.E. a theory which has remained not disproven for quite a while, with quite a bit of testing. None the less, claiming that there is no evidence that global warming is due to CO2 is just false, their is evidence, just like their can be circumstantial evidence in a trial even if the defendant is not guilty. There is actually quite a bit of evidence, but, this theory, like all theories remains unproven. This theory HAS had some testing done on it though, and so far it has not been shot down either, so it cannot be discounted so easilly. The point is, ALL decisions are based only on theories, not on facts. We can't know what's going to happen, we can only try and guess based on previous correlations. It's worked well in the past, and it's what we've got, so it's what we do.