HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
Blogs
Captain Hybrid

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

< Previous Page 2 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 52/54  >  >>
JimT@Future-Product-Innovations
User Rank
Blogger
Remember, “Spontaneous Generation” theory
JimT@Future-Product-Innovations   2/6/2012 7:39:28 AM

Lots of lengthy, well written, thoughtful posts --- from both sides of the argument.  But an important point for either position to embrace as "bedrock" is that the scientific process --- discovery, theorization, and group acceptance --- is a living process that often undergoes continuous growth and evolution as we deepen our understanding of a subject.  What looks like hard cold facts today will quite likely find exception tomorrow.  Remember, "Spontaneous Generation" was an accepted scientific theory by Aristotle for over two millennia until disproven in the 1800's. Further discovery leads to greater clarity.

jhachen
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
jhachen   2/5/2012 8:10:16 AM
Thanks for those thoughts.  I'll follow your recommendation and learn more from many sources. 

Over the years (I graduated in '74) of working, I've found in my industry that just because industry experts agree and follow a similar course of analysis, that doesn't make it correct.   With computers, very smart people can analyze very complex situations, but if the model isn't tested against reality, it is only gibberish.  The devil is in the detail.  If you don't go back to the original data and science, and make sure it is tied to the real world, then you may be in fantasy land.  Once it is accepted as fact, the lemmings continue...

I'll look into the ocean temperature issue.  I work in the offshore energy industry, have a lot of sources that should have acess to good data.

Cassiopeia
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
Cassiopeia   2/5/2012 3:51:23 AM
NO RATINGS
jhachen:  Yes, it can be better to investigate the science directly rather than rely on authority, but authority was the main thrust of the original article, so that is why I linked to the most up to date scientific opinions on this issue. However, I also linked to multiple independent evidence of AGW, which covered the technical basis as well.     

Glenn Tamblyn
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
Glenn Tamblyn   2/4/2012 11:29:19 PM
jhachen

 

Its probably best that I don't give you my opinion of Richard Lindzen. He is one of the high profile denier scientists and most frequently comments in various formats and media outside the published scientific literature.

 

I could try to list all the things wrong with his article but that would fill this blog. And Lindzen has already moved on to post thre same sort of stuff somewhere else.

Yuo should read the post I put up earlier about ocean warming. Apply your engineering background, basic Conservation of Energy, to what I have written and the conclusion I have drawn and see if you agree with my reasoning. Then ask yourself where was such data and reasoning from Lindzen?

For those such as yourself who aren't deeply immersed in the AGW wars and the science it can be difficult to know where to start and who to rely on. And my personal view (although this is shared by many other people) is that the likes of Lindzen are continually playing on that fact to mislead people and to create the illusion that there is still serious debate within academic circles about AGW when actually there isn't.

But my simply saying that obviously will not convince you.

So, instead of a single article describing the pro's & con's, which is too big a field, rather try this site: www.skepticalscience.com(SkS)

This site was originally established to be skeptical of the climate skeptics - hence its name. So it began by writing rebuttals to skeptic claims. The strength of it is that all the rebuttals are grounded in links to the published science. So starting point for you might be to read through the rebuttals to the skeptic arguments - these are often in Basic, Intermediate & Advanced form. Some of the arguments do at least at face value need to be taken seriously, with a serious explanation of why they are wrong. Others are simply nonsensical. But SkS still takes seriously writing a rebuttal to them. Then start skimming back through the archive of posts. Read things like the 'OA not OK' series on ocean acidification. And there is also a section on the denialists and the identified faults and logical inconsistencies in their positions.For example, this thread began with the 16 in the WSJ talking about how warming has stopped. As I pointed out below, it hasn't. And several of that group are Climatologists/Meteorologists. They should know that ocean heat is the main game. But they feign ignorance in the media.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I am one of the circle of authors who work producing content at SkS. Like you I was looking around for answers. I thought I understood that AGW was real but in on-line forums skeptics would put up some arguments that were hard to answer with the level of knowledge I had. Reading and then commenting at SkS led me to a much deeper understanding of the science and eventually I was asked to join the authors group.

Some of the posts will seem combative, rebutting other skeptic sites such as WUWT. This is because over time one comes to realise how false and mendacious much of the organised skepticism is and thus one becomes less tolerant of the same repeated misleading claims. But many of the others are  intentionally informative. The level of mosts of the posts is somewhat technical but if you bring your engineering background in areas such as Thermodynamics, Physics, Chemistry to understanding them you should be OK.

And posts almost universally link back to published scientific papers. So not just a commentary about the science. Direct links to allow you to read the scientific papers for yourelf. Compare that with somewhere like WUWT where the majority of the articles are commentary without links to the science, claims by a few 'experts' such as Willis Eschenbach that they can show some of the science or opinion is wrong with their 'analysis'. WUWT and its ilk try to tell you what to think, SkS offers you arguments, data and analysis but lets you make up your own mind

And the standard of moderation leaves the likes of WUWT looking positively barbaric.

But don't take my word for it. Go read for yourself & make up your own mind

jhachen
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
jhachen   2/4/2012 6:22:29 PM
But also, I will read your links to see if they help me understand it.  The CO2 argument doesn't seem too conclusive to me.  Many feedbacks are ignored, including water vapor.  Also, if you use the math, the actual warming is a quarter what is predicted, so what else is missing? 

The other thing is the time frame doesn't make sense to me.  Data in 50 years is too short in geological time.

 

jhachen
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
jhachen   2/4/2012 6:18:07 PM
I saw you referenced many opinions including surveys of scientists.  Those don't mean much to me. 

I'm looking for scientific studies which help people understand the pros and cons, what are the arguments for and against.  Everyone at one time thought the world was flat, just because 97% of people think so doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing for or against.  I'm just trying to make up my own mind.  You need to get into the details to do that.  I haven't found many objective articles.  Your comments didn't seem objective to me, mostly slinging mud around.

What are your thoughts of Richard Lindzen, here is one of his presentations.  His thoughts don't seem to be slanted, but I don't know if they are or aren't.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

Cassiopeia
User Rank
Silver
Re: Casslopea reply
Cassiopeia   2/4/2012 5:53:52 PM
jhachen If you click on the links you will find is is all fully referenced. Have you bothered?

It seems strange that you should be critisising my post which fully justifies each point by linking to the sources.

Why not start by pressing on that link describing your own industries scientists views? The Global Climate Coalition disbanded after that since they knew the game was up. Directly confronting the science would simply discredit them.  However, the same companies continued funding various astroturf groups which made it difficult to link back to them.

jhachen
User Rank
Silver
Casslopea reply
jhachen   2/4/2012 4:33:40 PM
Your response is typical of what I see, vague accusations, meaningless statistics, no data, and not believable. Do you have any real facts that are objective? I read a paper by a MIT professor, don't recall his name, it seemed objective. It actually had facts and theories.

Cassiopeia
User Rank
Silver
Re: Global Warming - manmade?
Cassiopeia   2/4/2012 10:02:52 AM
 

Whilst a Mechanical Engineer by training, I also took a post-graduate degree in Environmental Science back in the early 1980s. Even as far back as that, anthropogenic climate change was taught as factual and non-controversial. Since then there has been even more independent lines of evidence to support the science. Only at this stage did the subject become political when the fossil fuel industry launched a concerted and coordinated campaign starting from the mid 1990s to undermine climate change science and the scientists who work in this field. Their purpose was to create doubt in the public's mind about the reality of global warming, and delay regulations which might limit greenhouse gas emissions to the environment. Even the oil industries own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted although this was later cut from the records.

So only as the evidence of greenhouse gas warming became undeniable did the fossil fuel businesses realise they might have confront the growing pressure to reduce global warming. As a consequence, they employed a host of
public relations experts, some who had successfully delayed regulations against the tobacco industry, to weave a web of misinformation using a variety of unscrupulous media and various 'junk science' websites. Their methods were not based on physical science but psychology, targeting both uneducated and low income groups using tried and tested methods of persuasion. These included: peer pressure, misrepresentation, over-simplistic arguments, reiteration of falsehoods, attacks on individuals and groups, and claimed threats on personal liberty and wealth.

The main object was not to win, but provide the impression of an informed 'debate'
and to cast 'sufficient doubt' on climate science by spreading confusion and uncertainty. This would allow these businesses to fight a delaying action to avoid regulation, and thereby impose an enormous cost to future society. Anyone who wishes to understand more about this I can highly recommend the book Merchants of Doubt by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes.

Whilst more than
97% of scientists who are active publishers in the field of climate change accept the reality of AGW (anthropogenic or human induced global warming), a very small number of climate scientists and non-specialists lured by money from the fossil fuel lobby were recruited into the Climate Denial camp. Their names often appear in petitions, mixed with fake identities and even the decreased, to make it appear as if there is a substantial proportion of scientists which oppose the AGW consensus. This figure was confirmed by a more recent study which included an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (a) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (b) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

jhachen
User Rank
Silver
Global Warming - manmade?
jhachen   2/4/2012 9:56:33 AM
I am an engineer working in the oil industry, and I also care deeply about our environment. I strive to be objective in my opinions, however reading most articles and blogs it seems that most people are very one sided, looking at one side of the argument only.  One of the things that confuses the argument is some people talk about global warming and others talk about man-made global warming.  They are two distinctly different arguments.  

I think there is a strong argument that we are currently going through a global warming period.  Most data shows the earth is very warm, certainly on the warmer side of recent history.  The uncertainty is about the cause of this warming.  

From what I have read, it is not clear that there is a strong case to demonstrate this is due to man-made activities.  This even includes the recent IPCC reports I have read.  It is a complex problem, and all potential causes and potential feedback loops need to be discussed.  

Who knows of a good objective article that gives an objective view with credible facts?  One that doesn't choose only the facts that support their conclusion, but chooses both pros and cons of their conclusion?

<<  <  Page 52/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Captain Hybrid
A pure electric car with a lithium-ion battery can lose as much as 57% of its range when the temperature dips and 33% when the mercury rises, a new AAA study says.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
After reading all the recent news reports about Tesla Motors’ proposed “Gigafactory,” it’s hard not to wonder about the future of battery-electric cars, and how low their costs can really go.
California’s plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isn’t the first such undertaking and certainly won’t be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
Tesla Motors plans to build a huge battery factory in hopes of making electric cars affordable for the general public.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service