Global Warming? are humans to blame?

yikes

most of the scientists I know are still living on stale pizza and warm beer, None are particularly wealthy and none would risk "sensationalizing" a paper lest they get demolished for it in the community. Thing is science is about the most cutthroat group of players there are. If someone manages to publish something thats just plain wrong, which doe happen from time to time. Not only the author but the board that peer reviewed it and the publisher generally end up unemployed. So where you come up with the idea that its all one big fake by the media is a complete mystery to me.

There are tens of thousands of blind grants given every year prior to the research ever being done, so insinuating that the outcome of the research determines who gets grant money simply tells me that your just not familiar with the system. These guys are mostly broke as a joke and couldn't spend a day let alone a year or two on any project unless they had already received there funding.

 

I don't believe ANY body wakes up and thinks,"Ah! Another day. Watch me mess THIS one up! I'm EVIL!" I believe most scientists, and fledgeling politicians, are idealistic beginning their careers, with hopes of changing the world for the better. Then they get corrupted by the system. I also believe everybody is self delusional about where they are on the moral meter. It's natural to justify actions with the goodness of your intentions. Also, many scientists and professors indeed have mediocre salaries. Not everybody seeks a luxurious lifestyle. Some seek and acquire and spend, huge sums, not on themselves, but on their project.
As to built in accountability in the sciences cadre? Myth! Do you remember the scientist who claimed the sweetener Sacharine was carcinogenic? In the 1960s? Destroyed an industry. All Sacharine products recalled and removed from the stores. He was on the cover of Newsweek, Time, Scientific American, and other prestiges media. 30 years later, he announced new revelations. He was growing organic vegetables and testing them, and discovered that organic chemical free carrots, tomatoes, cabages, ect were MORE carcinogenic than Sacharine had been. He was sorry he caused so much problem. Didn't know who to apologize to. News worthy? Only Scientific American published the apology, and buried it in the back of the magazine. So. Who is naive about how the system works?

 

I'm getting curious what your degree is in, not trying to be obnoxious but I'm thinking its not in the sciences. There are almost no comparisons between the scientific process and the political process, Almost none of your previous seems to recognize this. The methodologies are completely at odds. So I always find it interesting when people continually try and associate the two.

 

What's your degree in, Boston?

 

Math, the Only empiricle science

 

Boston,
I respect you and your opinions.
The most influential class I ever took, was a 3 day seminar on "Understanding People".
We are all unique, more unique than most people imagine. Our individual uniqenes is magnitudes greater than differences in gender, race, culture, you name it. Because each of us is so completely "I", our viewpoints differ, our conclusions differ, and so our opinions.
The greatest cause of misunderstanding and conflict is: "Why can't you see the obvious?" Answer? Because something different is "obvious" to each person.

Now. What do politicians and scientists share in common? Hierarchy. Not the same hierarchy, but the entrenched system is rigid and seemingly unbreakable for both groups. Also in common, is a surplus of practitioners. Too many lawyers? Can't earn a living lawyering? Go into politics. Too many PHDs in your field? Can't get hired on with a laboratory? Discover a new threat to mankind. If you are a professor? Got to make tenure. Got to kiss the rings of the Deans and dept chairs. This topic is convoluted and complicated. I'm just hitting the crests of the deep.
Follow me now?

 

Boston,
Let me offer you a mirror for a moment. Have I attacked you personally? Have I inquired as to your qualifications or denigrated you in anyway? I did attack a commonly held theory in which you believe. You responded by more or less insulting my inteligence.
Here is the mirror. In any debate, descending to personal attacks is a symptom of weakness in your argument. Didn't they teach that in debate class where you went to school? Please reflect a moment, on your motives. Is global warming a crusade for you? Akin to a religion? If so, it's understandable why you consider me a pagan heretic.

 

oh please, no one attacked you, I merely asked what your degree was in, because of your consistent attempts to associate the political process with the scientific process I guessed it wasn't in the science. The two processes are so completely different I'd just never heard anyone try to compare them before.

Also you mentioned a hierarchy, there isn't one in the sciences, once you've got your PHD everyone's pretty much all on the same playing field, although a Nobel never hurt anyones "standing" the basic system is designed so that anyone might have the same chance as anyone else to forward a study, and to have that study subject to the same review process as anyone else.

also I notice the commonly used denier tactic of likening a rigorous defense of the science on this issue as some form of religion. Does that mean I"m insulting you by saying that your last is a common angle taken by a group ( who you have clearly stated you agree with ) who's scientific defense of there position is ludicrously flawed. Seems like every trick in the book is being thrown out here rather than discuss the science of the issue. Getting personal is just not my style, but I'll harp on the science all day long.

are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, because that was established well over 180 years ago.
or are you saying that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow not directly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, because numerous methods of identifying that CO2 have all shown it to be directly the result of exactly that. The burning of fossil fuels.
Or are you saying that you don't believe the worlds average temp has increased 2°C since 1800. Another extremely well established fact.

All are so clearly established within the science that arguing any of these basic tenants is just not facing reality.

Your welcome to try and take whatever personal angle you want but I think I'll just stick to my guns on this one and continue to focus on the thread topic.

Global Warming is undoubtedly the cause of mans burning of fossil fuels. The science is extremely clear on this

 

A 2 degree rise since 1800? Really? In the 1970s scientists were predicting we were headed for another ice age. The Detroit River was frozen over by thanksgiving 1976. How cold does it have to be to freeze a mile wide river with a swift current? 1985 was the coldest winter in northern US since 1948. My point is your data is insignificant. There has not been a steady linear rise in temperature since 1800. It fluctuates and cycles and in recent years we've had warmer than normal weather so it loads the average 2 degrees warm. A couple hard winters, and we are due, and the average will drop. Lots of psuedo scientists and real but unethical scientists, and a lot more cult following folk like to use statistics that on hearing sound meaningfull, untill you analyze them. The government is the worst abuser of bad statistics.
I'll give you a classic example, and I'm dead set against drugs, so don't interpret this as a defense of drug use.
For a period of about 30 years, federal government endorsed the statistic that a large % of heroin users started with marijuana. Don't remember now exact %. Hence marijuana leads to heroin. Plausible? Untill you analyze that a larger % of heroin addicts started with Juicy Fruit gum, and 100 % of addicts started with milk. See my point? Insignificant tho impressive sounding statistics. Two degree ambient rise in temperature in 200 years belongs in that category. Thats science, friend. Statistical math is real science, as are the other maths.

 

Same old song and dance Yobar my friend, countless deniers have come on board with the same song and dance I'm seeing now. This stuff is old hat around here. Each and every argument is significantly flawed. The present alterations in the atmospheric chemistry are not cyclical. Or are you suggesting that at some point in the distant past ancient cave men drilled millions of oil wells, pumped 90 million barrels a day. Shipped them round the world and burned it all in a puff of unregulated fog. Causing a whopping spike in temp. Yup you got me. Its cyclical. All happened before when Fred Flintstone was working that dinosaur down in the quarry.

Sarcasm Yobar don't take it personally but really, cyclical, please. Government conspiracy, nope try again. Thousands of scientists over hundreds of years all planned it. Yup you got us, we planned it from way back in the 1830 when CO2 was first described as a greenhouse gas. Those guys sure know how to play a good joke now don't they.

love
B

And no taking it personally, its just silly if you correct someone on some particular issue and they get all agro on you. I've been on here a few years now preparing for my retirement build and every day I learn something about boat design I had though otherwise just the day before. Life is a learning experience. So don't stop learning just cause something turns out to be not what you expected.

cheers
B

 

OK. Impressive looking graph. Statistical analysis doesn't apply here because we don't have a second graph of a second population (control group) to analyze the differences.We can detect several trends nothing more. The largest earliest interval between 1800 and circa 1910, graphs 5 roughly 11 year half cycles between peaks and valleys. Amplitude of anomalies is gradually flatening and varies between 3/4 degree C and 1/4 degree C. Since the earths peoples in the 1800s thru 1900 didn't use enormous quantities of hydro carbon fuels, the most likely cause of higher and lower temperature anomalies were periods of heightened solar activity, which we know has roughly 11 year cycle. The 40 years between 1910 and 1950 shows a continued general flattening of anomaly amplitude. Most likely cause is an increase in sampling. In 1800 the number of temperature reporting stations was probably significantly fewer than 1900 and more pronounced discrepancy from 1950. Averaging a larger data base usually flattens amplitudes. The period 1950 to 1985, 35 years is pretty level with a marked dip late 60s thru 70s. Scientist during this period predicted a new ice age coming. This period 1950 to 1985 represents the mean of the graph and contains the baseline 0 C. The latest 32 year period indicates a general upwards trend totalling 3/4 degree C above mean. Significance? Warrants aditional monitoring. Relevance of a 32, 40, 35, 110, or 200 year general trend, only slightly more than any single year datas. Known climate cycles of the past are measured in 10,000s of years. Sd (standard deviation) would be 1 and 1/2 degree above mean and 1 and 1/2 degree below mean. All anomalies are less than Sd.

 

I hate to bust your bubble, but such a HUGE amount of the global warming fraternity data falls under the tactic of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!"

 

check again. The resent temp anomalies are far outside of standard deviation

please see

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

Cool now maybe we can get down to some science. Its called Milankovitch cycles and they used to be a predominant aspect of the climate systems fluctuations over time. However, the burning of fossil fuels over the industrial age has overwhelmed these cycles, sure they are still visible in the data but the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry caused by the burning of fossil fuels has forced a deviation from they norm. IE massive increases in greenhouse gasses and a system that is rushing as fast as it can to find a new equilibrium within those changes.

Go find another change in temps comparable to the present one and locate its place in the Milankovitch cycle, then try and find a corresponding cycle synonymous with the severity of our present event. You will soon figure out that not only is this event running counter to the present sun cycle its also got no other rational explanation other than the one that fits it perfectly. Alterations in the atmospheric chemistry, specifically an increase in greenhouse gas.

good to see you finally willing to discuss the science lets just hope you can maintain an open mind.

 

your a long way from baffling anyone with the denialist BS mate. We've seen it all before. There isn't an argument you've tried yet that hasn't been tried a hundred times by a hundred other deniers. It's like a game of find the flaw and it gets easier every time

 

what I really hate about this graph is that you can clearly see the fading Milankovitch cycles as the system gets more and more overwhelmed with the alterations in the atmospheric CO2



There still bound to show up from time to time but overall you can clearly see the dissipation