• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lennart Hyland said:
How much CO2 does it take to raise the temperature at some signification? A bunch of deniers I've discussed with claim that if you double todays amount of CO2 the temperature would raise 1 degree, is that true?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2

CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[11] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
Click to expand...
 
Trakar said:
Actively publishing and being heavily cited by peers, in legitimate science journals of relevant science fields, would be one of the better definitions of "actual, working, scientist."
Click to expand...
OK, but of fortune 500 companies some fund Research Labs and don't allow publication.

Most of their PhDs are still scientists. :)
 
Lennart Hyland said:
How much CO2 does it take to raise the temperature at some signification? A bunch of deniers I've discussed with claim that if you double todays amount of CO2 the temperature would raise 1 degree, is that true?
Click to expand...

This is both correct, and inaccurate!

Correct, in that if you could hold all other factors in check, in a laboratory setting, a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric concentration CO2 (~270ppm CO2 to 540ppm CO2) would cause, in isolation, a little bit more than 1° C rise in temperature.

Inaccurate, in that when we are talking about our planet's atmosphere, we cannot hold all other factors in check. As soon as temperatures start to rise, water in the environment will evaporate to load up the atmosphere to the new carrying capacity of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but it is highly dependent upon atmospheric temperature. When the water vapor feed back equilibrates with the CO2 forcing, it is sufficient to additionally raise the temperature a bit more than 2-2.5°C or so.

In a sealed test-tube, a doubling of CO2 roughly yields 1°C of additional energy retained when such tubes are exposed to appropriate long-wave radiation. In our planet's atmosphere, however, a doubling of CO2 concentration does not happen in isolation and it results (from additional feedback mechanisms) in a short-term/immediate IR "insulation" that retains 3-3.5+°C temperature. There are other gasses and conditions that add to, and subtract from this baseline, which is why there are differences of consideration among climate scientists as to what our precise short-term and long-term climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
OK, but of fortune 500 companies some fund Research Labs and don't allow publication.

Most of their PhDs are still scientists. :)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure my Doctor and Dentist both are considered working scientist. Even with out that publishing thing. In fact, most scientist don't publish.
 
Yes, Dr. Oz is a "working scientist".

Maybe people don't get it yet: one can vote who will be our nation's president; one can't vote who is a working scientist the same way one can't issue a diploma with a certificate degree in science.

Yet, diploma mills exist.
 
AlBell said:
OK, but of fortune 500 companies some fund Research Labs and don't allow publication.

Most of their PhDs are still scientists. :)
Click to expand...

Please reference examples of such. The only instance I know of working scientists not being allowed to publish their work in respected and recognized journals are those working on classified research in association with certain government projects, and accommodations are made with respect to their work.1 In general, however, if a researcher is not publishing his work and it is not being subjected to rigorous peer review by the community of global scientists in that field, then that isn't science and they aren't "actual, working, scientists" by definition.

In general, while I can see how some employment contracts might seek to limit the ability of a corporate scientist to publish concerning specific and patentable processes, this would not limit a researcher's ability to publish regarding other issues within his field. In fact, each year that a researcher does not publish hurts their value within that company and any other companies that they might seek employment with in the future. I really don't see any benefits that would encourage a researcher to work under those conditions.

But this is wandering a bit far afield of climate science discussions. With respect to climate science, I would be very surprised if there are any corporate R&D programs scooping up and sequestering away from public contact many of our young bright climate science grad students.

(1) Journal of Intelligence Community Research and Development (JICRD), is an example of (in this case) a CIA publication on the border of classified, journal. Journals like this allow researchers in some classified R&D programs the opportunity to share their research and results and gain some feedback from within the closed community of researchers. Until such work is declassified however, these researchers are not generally given credit for their work, nor are they technically considered to be "actual, working, scientists."
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
I'm pretty sure my Doctor and Dentist both are considered working scientist. Even with out that publishing thing. In fact, most scientist don't publish.
Click to expand...

As is typical of most of these types of things, they are seldom subject to the strictures of what some are "pretty sure" about. Doctors and Dentists tend to rely upon scientific understandings, occasionally employ scientific methodology when making diagnoses and treatment plans, and are qualified to begin careers in medical research (in which case they publish or perish like any other scientist), but it would be a mistake to think that doctors and dentists fit the qualification of an "actual, working, scientist," merely because they pass their state's medical boards and set up shop seeing patients. Given the level of their understanding of their chosen field, I have no problem in calling a graduate doctor or dentist (or even senior med students) "a scientist," but unless they are doing research and publishing, they should not be considered "working scientists."
 
Last edited:
The battle for Consensus Point is over, with the defending forces (the point being, of course, that "there is no consensus") scattered and disorganised. Pockets of fighting remain, around the Oregon Petition redoubt and the definition of "actual working scientist", but its all over bar the whining. The line that Frank Lunz, a renowned and successful strategist, said was crucial has been breached.

There's nothing for it now for the AGW deniers but to fall back on the Final Redoubt - Antaractica - and hold together long enough for the imminent Little Ice Age to save the day.
 
Haig said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S4yyQ7Ts8&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
Click to expand...
Sorry, Haig, but argument by YouTube video is not an argument at all!
But a quick summary: "Climate change is real" and then the conspiracy theory, ignorance and unsupported woo starts ....
* "Our projections have been wrong for decades" climate myth.
* Politics instead of science: "the right is attacking"/"the left is in denial"
* The "dissenters have lost their jobs" climate myth.
* a "skeptic pool is growing" assertion. One geophysicist stating their opinion in an interview is not a pool increasing. 97% of climate scientists think that global warming exists and is caused by us. Historically that % has increased.
* weather is climate :jaw-dropp!
* Huge 'whirlpools' in the ocean are driving the weather (my emphasis added)
* the climate models he despises make predictions (Arctic summer storm track in CMIP3/5 climate models) and include new knowledge :eek:!
* the "Antarctic sea ice melting = not AGW" climate myth! Together with the ignorance of thinking that sea ice is on land and subject to the new discoveries about geothermal heating of glaciers
* the "it is the Sun" climate myth!
* The ignorance of thinking that the upper atmosphere is the entire atmosphere and citing The importance of geomagnetic field changes versus rising CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere

In summary - a rant by a climate change denier.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Blinkered thinking in academia
Click to expand...
No it does not explain why, Haig.
If you had bothered reading that Financial Post article by an MD (Arnold Aberman is former dean of the University of Toronto medical school) then you would have read the actual topic of the speech: Academic freedom seems to be restricted "at least at some universities".
His advice is good:
So what is my advice to you, fellow graduates? Don’t follow the examples of Brandeis University, Rutgers University, Smith College, and Haverford College. You can’t learn in an echo chamber, welcoming only your ideas. Listen to those who you do not agree with – in fact, I urge, seek them out. Oppose their theories with facts, not with censorship. Be very suspicious of those who want to cut off debate with “this is against settled science. Appealing to authority is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Click to expand...

This is what has happened to the climate change deniers
* their theories have been opposed with facts and found wanting.
* their theories have been the opposite of censored. The media over the past few decades have sold the denier side very well.
 
balrog666 said:
Oh, and please define "climate change denier" as well -- do any of them deny that we were in the middle of an ice age only 12-15K years ago? :boggled:
Click to expand...
Probably not.
But a "climate change denier" will probably have the delusion that the modern global warming has something to do with this 12-15K year old ice age :jaw-dropp.
Previous ice ages do have a connection with AGW in that they give estimates of climate sensitivity.
 
Talking about "actual working scientists", guess what actual climate scientists doing research say about the climate change debate:
What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
“Don’t shoot the messenger,” so the saying goes.

But what if that message warns we might want to rethink that whole fossil fuel burning thing pretty quick because it could seriously alter civilization and the natural world for centuries to come, and not in a good way?

Time to get the bullets out and start firing, obviously.

Climate scientists have been trying to dodge, catch or deflect those bullets for decades.

They are now all too used to being shot at, kicked and maligned as their findings are misunderstood, misrepresented, trivialised or booted around like footballs between politicians and other warring ideological factions and self-interested industry groups.

But if they had to pick one thing, what is it that really gets them annoyed?
Click to expand...
 
balrog666 said:
Oh, and please define "climate change denier" as well -- do any of them deny that we were in the middle of an ice age only 12-15K years ago? :boggled:
Click to expand...

In general, the term is "climate science" denier.

No one, I've ever run into, disputes the concept of climate nor that climate changes. But many dispute everything from CO2 having any effect on temperature or climate to the more mundane "nobody knows" what causes climate change and humans can't impact natural systems deliberately or accidentally.
 
"In general, the term is "climate science" denier. "

i call them AGW Deniers, some of them Science Deniers (only when it turns out he is in denial of several scientific Topics, like AGW and Evolution, which happens quite alot.)
 
balrog666 said:
Oh, and please define "climate change denier" as well -- do any of them deny that we were in the middle of an ice age only 12-15K years ago? :boggled:
Click to expand...
A good number deny that their god had got around to creating the world at all, let it alone decided on its climate, 12-15k years ago. They're mostly in the US, of course, so easy enough for most people to avoid, thank the Goddess.
 
Trakar said:
In general, the term is "climate science" denier.

No one, I've ever run into, disputes the concept of climate nor that climate changes. But many dispute everything from CO2 having any effect on temperature or climate to the more mundane "nobody knows" what causes climate change and humans can't impact natural systems deliberately or accidentally.
Click to expand...

Actually, the term is "skeptic" and here is 107 reasons why they are increasing ... The big list of failed climate predictions

Anyone like to show the list of correct climate predictions by climate alarmists?

How short is that? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom