What Do We Think About Climate Change

Attacking problems that don't exist with solutions that don't work is a great way to exert control over a population in perpetuity.

 

It's amazing to me that some people who don't know the first thing about a topic still somehow think that their opinions are just as valid as the opinions of people who have spent their lives in legitimate research on the same topic.

 

...what do we have movie stars for, they are always commenting on world matters....as if they knew.....

 

Ah yes, let's just leave the world and civilization to the "experts". Great idea!

 

Perhaps you would like to share your credentials. At least I have college credits in both meteorology and climatology.

 

Ok, mine was a flippant response to a sarcastic remark attempting to make an argument from authority.

We are entitled to opinions, whether one likes it or not. The weight the opinion carries depends on the the manner in which we back up our opinion. Most of us who have been a part of this discussion since it's start have done quite a bit of research into the papers and studies of the experts on both sides of the debate.

The only thing that there is really no debate on regarding climate change is that the debate is not over regardless of what Al Gore says.

Lets look at some of the areas of debate.

C02 causes warming? There is not a single peer reviewed paper that proves C02 causing warming. In fact the available observational data shows increases in atmospheric C02 occur hundreds of years after warming takes place.

Polar bears are in danger? If the AGW hypothesis were true the polar bears are extinct as they would not have survived the last time the Artic Sea Ice disappeared.

The rate of warming is cause for alarm? The real observational data shows quite the opposite. Only when "adjusted" data is used is this the case. The alarm is the reliance on computer models vs. real data.

AGW caused the ice ledge on the Antartic pennisula to break off? The real cause was underground volcanic activity.

The oceans are rising at an increasing rate? When one removes the data from one malfunctioning tide gauge in Hong Kong harbor, the actual sea level increase amounts to 17" over a hundred years.

Tropical storms will increase in number and intensity? The statistics show no such increase over the span of all recorded storm history.

Droughts will increase in length and severity? Again there is no statistical evidence to back that up.

Is the climate changing? Of course it is, and no one says it isn't. Is the rate of change alarming? Only if you ignore the observational data going back centuries and look only at the short term trends.

So which experts do we listen to? Do we trust the ones who have withheld data, falsified records, distorted statistics, defied accepted practices, intimidated fellow scientists, covered up non supportive data and engaged in a conspiracy to restrict the free flow of knowledge? Or do we trust the experts who use conventional methods of research and share their research and data with everyone.

I think the answer is obvious, but that's just my opinion.

 

I have an even better idea. Why don't more people just learn more about what they are talking about so they can have an informed opinion, rather than swallowing the opinions being spoon fed to them by rabble rousers with their own agendas?

 

Sounds like a great plan. Let it begin with YOU.

Jimbo

 

I think the scam uncovered in the UK ( perpetrated by Government funded scientists ), helped me decide and millions of others I'm sure

 

First, let's be clear what my comment addressed. It addressed the relative validity of opinions held by people who are truly knowledgeable about a topic compared to those who are not. To put it in different words, the validity of someone who is not knowledgeable is, generally speaking, less valid than one who is knowledgeable. I stand by that statement.

This is not to say that people are not entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to form an opinion on any subject. However, this does not mean that such opinions are equally valid. For example, I may have an opinion on some aspect of boat design, and I may fervently and strongly believe in my opinion. However, such an opinion would, generally speaking, be less valid than the opinion held by an expert here at boatdesign.net? Why? Because I know very little about boat design, whereas many of you are experts who know a great deal.

Similarly, my opinion in an area in which I am an expert (physical chemistry and mass spectrometry) is probably more valid than an opinion that most people here at boatdesign.net would have on this area.

To bring the topic around a bit, I doubt if the typical climatologist would know much about boat design, and his/her opinion on boat design is likely not as valid as the opinion of an expert here at boatdesign.net.

Similarly, the typical expert boat designer here at boatdesign.net probably knows a lot less about climatology than the typical climatologist, and his/her opinion on climatologist is likely less valid than the opinion of an expert climatologist.

Now, to address your question directly on credentials, I am not an expert on climatology, and I did not offer an opinion on that topic.

I am, however, an expert in science in a more general way. I have a PhD in chemistry. My PhD thesis was primarily in the area of chemical kinetics and photochemistry, and I have published more 80 peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature on topics ranging from physical chemistry to instrumentation design to clinical chemistry to clinical studies. I have taken no course work in climatology, though I have taken course work in atmospheric chemistry and photochemistry.

Now, please tell us more about your credentials.

 

Jimbo,

Good idea. In fact, it is a course of action I already generally try to follow.

 

There is no scam, except the one you're helping to perpetrate with posts like that.

Someone with flexible or non-existent ethics (and ulterior motives) illegally hacked into thousands of emails and documents. They filtered them for those containing the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model", went through what was left, and managed to find some that prove scientists can sometimes be embarrassingly petty and human, just like real people. And according to you, that somehow invalidates the entire field of climatology.

I bet you believe all those chain emails you get about Obama being born in Kenya and educated in a Muslim madrasa too, don't you?

But what the heck. Why shouldn't you put your blind trust in people who are so honest, upright and pure of motive that that they hid their identities by going through computers and servers in Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia? They must be real salt-of-the-Earth types....unlike those scumbag climatology scientists, who actually sign their names to what they do and say.

 

I take your word that it has helped you decide, and no doubt millions of others as well. However, in doing so you are falling prey to fallacious reasoning. The case for or against climate change does not stand or fall on the questionable actions of a single investigator. In fact, the case does not stand or fall on the actions of a single investigator, regardless of whether the actions were questionable or not. Now, if you can show that the majority of investigators acted unethically with regard to their scientific work, then it could call into question the scientific consensus.

As to the specific actions of that investigator, I am aware that there was some kind of problem, but i do not know the details. Perhaps you can fill me and the rest of us in on the details. In particular, was the investigator accused of falsifying the data or conclusions presented in his scientific papers, or was it some other kind of wrong doing? Please be specific and factually accurate.

 

I think it's time to review, once again, the real facts as they stand today. Having undertaken such a review, the validity of the opposing viewpoints on this matter can be assigned their proper merit. This is the 5th of such reviews posted to this thread.

1. There was absolutely nothing unusual or anomalous about 20th century climate. The only source you can find for this idea is the works of 'The Team' which were already deeply, irrevocably discredited long before the recent hacked email scandal. The large body of evidence available outside the works of 'The Team' show 20th century climate to be well within the scope of natural climate variability.
   
   
   
2. The particular physics of CO2 allow that it is a very efficient greenhouse agent in our atmosphere for only its first ~100ppm or so. After this, the atmosphere is essentially in 'spectral saturation' WRT CO2 and additional CO2 has very little effect. Our atmosphere has been over the spectral saturation point for tens of thousands of years. No plausible 'workaround' explanation has been proffered for the spectral saturation situation. The 'rescue' explanation most often proffered refutes the rescue explanation of the missing tropical hot spot, outlined in #5 below.
   
   
3. CO2 has a short residence time in our atmosphere. We know this with very high certainty because of the numerous residence time studies done over a ~50 years period by different scientists working in different countries funded by various sources which all arrived at this same conclusion; the residence time for atmospheric CO2 is short. The implications of this fact are profound WRT this discussion. The inescapable conclusion is that it's impossible for anthropogenic emissions to have been responsible for the atmospheric CO2 rise observed over the last ~200 years.
   
   
4. In no time scale do we observe atmospheric CO2 increases preceding temperature increases. The observed reality is always the opposite, with temperature rise preceding CO2 rise by a few centuries. Proponents of the AGW narrative initially argued that this could not be so and that once better ice cores and analysis methods became available, the order of events that they expected would become obvious. Of course, the newer methods and cores did not corroborate their narrative. So they changed their explanation. The current iteration is therefore their 'rescue' explanation of events, NOT in harmony with their original explanation. This shows how they are married to their narrative even in the face of refuting evidence. So the basic 'cause and effect' order of events needed to show causation is missing.
   
   
5. Basic greenhouse theory and all computer models currently used to predict the greenhouse behavior of our atmosphere predict that the greenhouse effect will be most prominent in the middle of the atmosphere over the tropics. For years the proponents of the AGW narrative stressed the importance of this tropical 'hot spot'. But alas, this important piece of potentially corroborating evidence went missing. Instead, we observe stratospheric cooling. The proponents of the narrative have once again offered a convoluted, highly problematic explanation (whereby stratospheric cooling is actually the observed tropical 'hot spot') so that this refuting observation can somehow still support the narrative, despite being opposite their earlier predictions, proving once again that they are married to this narrative and have lost all objectivity.
   

Jimbo

 

My son is getting married in about 3 hours, so I don't really have time to respond to your list. However, let's just take the first item for starters

Who is this "Team" you are talking about? Please show us the evidence that such a team exists, and that they are in cahoots. Let's call your idea on this point what it is, i.e essentially a conspiracy theory. You may feel differently about this, but my general view on conspiracy theories is that they are almost never valid and that the burden of proof lies with those espousing the conspiracy theory.

As to the discrediting of the consensus view of climatologists, please tell us where these contrary views were published in the scientific literature, or at least give us some credible sources which in turn refer to primary literature. There there is no doubt there there is a minority view among climatologists against global warming, but it is an extremely small minority that holds the contrary view. Does that mean the consensus view is correct? No, but if I were a betting man I would not bet the farm against the consensus of expert opinion, and there is far more at stake here than a farm.

As far as the climate trends and the natural climate variability, what credible source do you have for the assertion that there is a body of evidence showing that 20th century climate trends are within the scope of natural climate variability?