Um, the geese are migrating kinda early

[stormdog74]

Wow, Anna, I am sorry - this seems to have really upset you. I thought we were just having a spirited discussion. Anyway, I will try to keep this short since you don't want to continue the discussion.

You want me to provide hard science, but I am not an expert in this field - none of us here are experts (hey, I though we were just talking around the coffee pot), so we are left to believe or not believe the experts in the field. I suppose if I need an operation I could go to medical school to make up my mind, or I could consult with experts and then make up my mind. Do I go with the vast majority or with the guy who tells me to just hope for the best? When I actually die, then we will have proof and should do something.

If you want to change your way of life, go ahead, that's your business. But please don't think that we should ALL go jump in the lake because some of us are scared witless.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So pardon me but it will take more than just shrill screaming that the sky is falling before I jump inside the fox's den. At least not with further proof that it is actually falling.

Wow - where is all this coming from? What concerns me most is that you seem to approach this from an extremist point of view (hence, my concern regarding your dubious conservative sources), and I get the feeling that you think I am an extremist on the other side, which, if you read my posts, you will find otherwise. And "shrill screaming"? Where in the world is this coming from? Why would you just dismiss a large number of scientists with this statement? I don't think anyone here is "scared witless" or believes "the sky is falling"! Now you are dismissing an entire argument with the Chicken Little attack. The question is should we be doing something, or just wait and see and hope for the best? You believe the latter and I, the former - no problem with that; this is America and we are allowed to believe what we want.

By the way, my "ad hominem attacks" as you call them are nothing of the sort. I could accuse you of the same.

They're not published in good enough journals!

YOU were refuting a well known paper by a respected professor with a link to a blog about an unseen paper that has only been submitted to a journal of questionable merit. By the way, I never said Oreskes was an expert on GW - her article had nothing to do with GW itself, as you know very well. I think she is well-qualified for this analysis though. Since you seem to like blogs, I typed in Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte in Google and these two interesting blogs came up (most likely liberal from the tone, but still interesting reading):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/6/1264/88476

http://www.desmogblog.com/the-endocr...-dc-think-tank

My point being that you are attacking someone with a conservative blog, but haven't looked at the corresponding liberal blogs. Not that we should be using blogs in the first place, of course.

It's not real! (in reference to the mid-century cooling.)

So, you can attack GW with a statement that it is just like global cooling and I can't point out the flaw? One last time I hope, global cooling was a conjecture with little scientific backing (of course, little does not mean none) whereas GW is a conjecture with a great deal of scientific backing.

They're being paid off by oil companies! They're like tobacco companies!

So, you can point out an article no one has seen that refutes an article published in a respected journal and I can't point out that these are the same tactics used by the tobacco industry, et al.? By the way, why do you have so much faith in this paper when no one has seen it, including yourself? Would you at least acknowledge that maybe it is because it is what you want to believe?

It's a small mistake, does not mean anything!

Wow, way to take this out of context! Why can't I point out that a small mistake in the short term (one year) has nothing to do with the long term. You can use the mistake as a "gotcha", but I can't counter it? Again, I will refer you to my stock market analogy.

Anna, I hope you are not taking anything I said personally as that was never intended. I certainly respect your viewpoints and hope that should we "meet again" in a forum that we can converse in the same civil manner.

Believe it or not, I want to be on your side. For a while I was a skeptic, and would really love to believe that there is nothing to it, but I have been convinced otherwise. Now, that doesn't mean I believe in the worst case scenario - I don't buy the extreme views on either side.

Okay, so this wasn't so short -sorry...

[Anna]

Stormdog, you misunderstand me. I'm not upset. I'm annoyed. For the last year, all I've been hearing is about how global warming is catastrophic, that we have to change our lives. Part of the argument is puritanical, i.e. we have to give up modern conveniences in order to save the planet. Another part is hypocritical, i.e. carbon offsets.

Once drought and floods, disappearance of bees, increase in bear population, decrease in bear population, long summers, short summers, harsh winters, mild winters, and anything else that happens becomes attributable to global warming, then that particular movement has moved beyond caricature.

There is no clear scientific argument that supports catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. That's why I asked that you provide one. How can you continue to argue based only on what scientists who are not even climate researchers say they believe?

The "well-known paper by a respected professor" I'm refuting wrote a paper that was not based on climate research by itself. It is a data-mining paper that anyone can do. Schulte's attempt to repeat it is as equally valid. Why is the fact that I linked to a blog that carried that story so significant and affect the judgment on the research itself? It's true I haven't seen the paper myself, but if what he says is true, isn't that enough fodder for questioning the consensus rather than just dismissing it?

As for Rosenberg's blog, I could fisk his piece - I have reviewed several papers for publication (yes, refereed scientific journals), so I kind of know what to look for - but what's the point? Early on, he already likened global warming to the holocaust. Godwin's Law lives.

The politics of the researcher is not supposed to affect his science, unless he is a bad scientist. I never mentioned Michael Mann's politics, but that doesn't change the fact that his hockey stick graph is crap. James Hansen's politics doesn't figure into the fact that his climate model that initially showed 1998 to be the hottest year is buggy and that the results are wrong. If you think Schulte's research is bad, don't just dismiss it as conservative propaganda. The neat thing about research is that it can be reproduced (if it's any good) or disproved (if it's bad).

Did I say that global cooling is just like global warming? I think what I was saying was that the hysteria surrounding global cooling is the same as the one we have now regarding global warming. You go from saying that GC is "pure conjecture" to "little scientific background." There were some science studies into GC, because GC was an observable phenomenon at that time (again, refer to global temperatures from that era). What they didn't know was what was causing it.

Fast forward to GW. We still don't know what's causing it. Some people want to believe it's carbon dioxide. I don't want to believe in anything. Just convince me with facts. If it's CO2, show me the study that says it is conclusively rather than emotionally.

Back when I just started doing my research and math modeling work, there was a model from the 1930s that everyone was quoting as gospel. Every time someone published a paper, it was always in reference to this guy and his work in modeling. I finally got curious because it just wasn't consistent with the studies I was getting. So I looked up the citation index, and traced my steps back, until I found the original paper. Guess what? The original paper did not say half the stuff that was being claimed it said 70 years later.

So, what I'm saying is, dig out the very first paper that implicated CO2 as a green house gas. Look at the science behind that study, what the conclusions are, etc. And trace your way back to what's going on today. It's become a mantra that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it's driving the global temperature. Where does that all come from?

And finally, the stock market analogy. I've avoided that because it has nothing to do with global warming! There are economic theories, yes. There are stock market computer models, yes. To the end that they are as accurate as they can be, that's because there has been a longer history of modeling the stock market.

Climate science is. not. there. yet.

[I know some math modeling guys in my area. These guys never do experiments, and they never go out in the field. We collaborated with them because my group ran a lot of experiments. That's when I realized that their models are just as good as the numbers I gave them. They have absolutely no idea what's going on in the real world. I wouldn't be surprised if the climate models are done the same way. In fact, most of them are! ]

Besides, compared to the complexities of the entire planet, the number of variables involved in stock market analysis is miniscule. There are unknown factors (war, idiot presidents, China, even meteors and GW) that will put these models into a tailspin. The fact that in the long term you can say that the stock market is going up speaks more to your faith in the capitalist system more than anything. About a century ago, someone said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I'm sure that at the time, that was patently true. Well, not anymore. (Yes, my point is that we may not have a United States of America as we know it in 100 or 1000 years, in which case every math model patterned after our current system will give us squat.)

I'm not pro or against GW. All I'm questioning is the science. And the fact that people come up with, "If we don't do anything now, it can be really really bad!" Tell me why I should jump without invoking polar bears and our grandchildren, then maybe I'll see some merit in the pro-AGW side.

Lastly, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE. It should not even be a point of discussion. It doesn't matter how many Nobel prize winners sign up. The only consensus that matters is when the scientists say that "We don't know enough" because that is the perennial state of science.




I am not taking this discussion personally. I am not vested one way or another. The only thing that irks me is the lack of scientific basis in the arguments. Look up my earlier replies. I tried to keep it as factual as I can. Where I have opinions, I state it as opinion. And where there are claims that may be questionable, I say that, too. I'd love for anyone to change my mind. But it has to be logical rather than emotional. That's why I thought I don't have any more to say here. Guess I was wrong.

My husband says I'm wasting my time here. And he's right. So have fun. I'm done with this discussion.

[cgallery]

As is the original poster's prerogative, I am stepping-in now to unofficially close this discussion. Good points made by both sides. 'Nuff said, let's bury it.

[Black wallnut]

As is the original poster's prerogative, I am stepping-in now to unofficially close this discussion. Good points made by both sides. 'Nuff said, let's bury it.

Not sure why you would want to end this so soon. This will surely be a hot topic far into the forseeable future. It has been a good exchange of ideas and ideals. It has brought many differing views to the forefront for those that had not otherwise done any research on this topic. I say we keep it open and those that feel compelled to respond do so. Those that are tired can choose to ignore this topic as I have ignored the "Song Game" topic.

There was a few places where in this topic some have IMHO crossed the political line. We have an exceptional community of posters at this site that seem to be able to keep most things civil. Well done All!

[Ed62]

Good post, Mark. I agree with everything you said.

Ed

[Red88chevy]

Wow! I'm been impressed with both sides of the discussion. Based on Mark's suggestion I'll comment on some of what I've read, I would have jumped in sooner but I just found it. First, as a meteorologist I can tell you "we" consider ourselves scientist, but I guess that is up for you decide. Degreed meteorologist have basically minors in both math and physics, in addition to our meteorology studies. After differential equations and vector analysis I can definitely tell you I have a deep respect for mathematicians. Both opinions have been as well supported as the research papers I read in the AMS. I know Stormdog's profession, I'm curious what Anna's is? She is definitely well read on the topic.

As mentioned earlier, climatologist and meteorologist have different emphasis, but greatly overlap. I can honestly tell you that I know of no meteorolgist that believes in global warming as caused by humans. I've heard some people argue that global warming is real because Minnesota or Wisconsin has obviously warmed since the last ice age. While that is true, it is also true that paleoclimatologist have found alligator remains in Antartica, so some places are much colder than they have been in times past. I should reference that, Dr. Gerald North, 1993, professor of Climatology and Paleoclimatology, Texas A&M University, expert on climiate change and scientific advisory to the Clinton administration. Here's his bio incase anyone is interested, http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/north.php
The argument comes down to whether or not temperatures are increasing.
As far as temperature readings, I can come up with surface observations that taken alone would support either side of the discussion. The encroachment of urbanization into rural areas and the heat island effect can cause substantial errors in the accuracy of historic climate data. Changes in temperature sensing equipment can also have large impacts in observed readings. And there are just plain ole human errors. Most meteorologist believe the earth's temperatures run in cycles and the earth may just be in a warmer one. So while I and my office colleagues do not believe in global warming as defined on the nightly news, as forecasters we know the proof is in the pudding. If global warming is so obvious, we'll see it in the actual temperatures, but so far, we don't see it.

Doug Cain
Lead Forecaster
NWS Midland

[JR]

Arctic sea route opens

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070915/...c_passage_dc_4

[devinjc]

Are we causing global warming? I don't know.

What is being held up as the cause of global warming? Pollution.

Near as I can tell, unless pollution is going to make all of us live 100 years longer, it would seem fairly obvious to be against it.

Pretty much everything that is blamed for global warming, is proven to cause something else bad for us, either our health, quality of life, or the beauty around us. You can argue that's not true, but you can't win.

Thus, they could say it's causing the moon to turn neon green, the other negative impacts would be enough to alter our behaviors a little bit.

I dunno, maybe that makes too much sense.

I'm not green cause I'm scared, I'm green cause it's cheaper to use less gas, less power, and less crap. Thus more money to go see places that I'd prefer not to be covered in the by-products that come from making all the crap I try to use less of.

[Slik Geek]

What is being held up as the cause of global warming? Pollution.

Near as I can tell, unless pollution is going to make all of us live 100 years longer, it would seem fairly obvious to be against it.

The hard fact of life is that every living thing pollutes - all create waste.
Fortunately, many times one living thing's waste is another's nutrient. For example, animals breath oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants "breath" carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen.

Thus, we have to be careful, and not declare ourselves to be against all "pollution", for some pollution is absolutely necessary to sustain life. We have to be careful to ascertain whether the waste we (or any living things) generate is so harmful or persistent that we must expend energy and resources to eliminate or reduce it.

Pretty much everything that is blamed for global warming, is proven to cause something else bad for us, either our health, quality of life, or the beauty around us. You can argue that's not true, but you can't win.

I disagree. Many of them aren't bad for this earth, they are part of the natural cycle of life.

"Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas" (Scientific American, August 2007, page 68). Thus, we should try to eliminate water vapor. Don't exhale anymore, encapsulate all rivers and lakes, encapsulate all plants. Don't cook anything with fire. All these release water vapor.

What about carbon dioxide and methane? Also condemned as greenhouse gasses. All animals are sources of these "pollutants", mostly exhaled, not the other end. Decaying plants release methane.

Don't say that all those cattle are disrupting the balance of nature. The number of cattle in the United States today, for example, is slightly less than the lowest estimates of bison that roamed this same soil 250 years ago. Some estimate the number of bison at more than double the number of cattle today.

I'm not green cause I'm scared, I'm green cause it's cheaper to use less gas, less power, and less crap. Thus more money to go see places that I'd prefer not to be covered in the by-products that come from making all the crap I try to use less of.

Here we agree. Focus our resources in areas where we can make a difference that can be scientifically proven. Invest in technologies and encourage lifestyles that reduce our impact on this earth. We burn fuel to cool our homes in the summer, and then burn fuel to heat them in the winter - there is a better way!

Just don't waste billions of dollars chasing global warming phantoms.

[cork58]

Geese

I must agree with Steve, no big "V's" yet here in Alaska. Same thing last year I think.?.? They may have changed their route and gone through the Northwest Territories (sp) again. Seems they do go to the East lately. Duck hunting has been poor at best as well. I talked to a friend up north that gathers eggs and the crop was good this year and they have left from up there now. So whats up?

Cork.

[davethegolfer]

Global Warming

It is now undisputed scientific fact that the sun cycles are what drives our warming and cooling trends. We now know that Mars temperature has increased the same amount over the last 100 years as the earths. Actually even a little more. I am sure some environmentalists will find a way to blame man for Mars warming. Even if they were right, which is now greatly in question, the solutions are based on knee-jerk bad science. To use only one example dear to woodworkers, they adamantly oppose cutting old growth forests. While it it true that trees absorb carbon dioxide, as the trees mature their absorbtion rate dramatically declines to the point where it is well below the absorbtion rate of newly planted and growing trees. Even some die hard environmentalists now recognize this but they are chastised for publishing articles that attack the old mantra that old trees should not be harvested and replanted. Finally on the most scientists support man caused global warming theory, a complete and unbiased peer reviewed survey of articles in 8,700 leading scientific and environmental journals showed about a 50/50 split - a significant change from 5 years ago. Science is finally winning out over political fear mongering.