Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:12pm PT
|
"William Gray is wacko with no credibility in Global Climate Change science"
That's a slightly harsh (and frankly untrue) assessment. Bill Gray is a bit out of touch, and is considered to be a bit extreme even amongst the tiny but voluble skeptics of anthropogenic climate change. (He's about the only atmospheric scientist left who contends there is no climate change; most just dispute its anthropogenic origins). But to claim that he has no credibility in climate science is a bit disrespectful.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:12pm PT
|
From the link...
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
|
|
Bamm_Bamm
Social climber
I'm lost, Please help me!!!
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:15pm PT
|
Dr F.
What kind of Dr are you? You don't sound like any type of Dr. that I know.
You owe it to the rest of us to let us know your area of expertise.
You sound like a fraud and act like a child.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:19pm PT
|
"Any person that declares a scientific hypothesis a closed case on a subject that we have only been studying for a very short time is not only a fool but also an obstructionist to the evolution of human intellect. "
Anthropogenic forcing of the Greenhouse Effect hasn't been considered a hypothesis for 15-20 years; it's reached the lofty heights of a 'theory'.
It will remain probably remain a theory (at least for the next 50 years when we'll know one way or another), because the climate system is not so simple as to allow some kind of incontrovertible 'smoking gun' that says "ha! There it is; it's all about CO2".
However, being a 'theory' is not so bad. Newtonian mechanics is just a theory (we used to call it a 'law' until Einstein came along and showed that the Newtonian model breaks down in some situations). But your car and power plant and cam has been designed by Newtonian rather than quantum mechanics, so it can't be completely useless.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:34pm PT
|
"....Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." "
That's a bit disingenuous, Mr bluering. If you put a search on any article database for the keyword 'Climate Change', I'll bet you a brand new C4 to a cold beer that the large majority of the resultant articles will be concerned with the local effects of climate change, rather than with attribution. There's no reason for a study on, say, sea ice trends in Antarctica (to take my own subject area) to make any endorsement, explicit or otherwise, of whether observed changes are anthropogenic or otherwise.
Anyway, I must off and make up more leftist, Godless, American-hating lies about climate change.
The fun you can have with stats, eh.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:35pm PT
|
I rest my case about those that continue to refer to it as "Global Warming".
LOL!!!!1111
though I suppose there is another reason it continues to be used. In lots of places the data shows it's colder. Therefore the rightwinged propaganda spew can point this out and state "but but it's colder over there. So much for your global warming yadda yadda".
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:42pm PT
|
The term climate change is used to differentiate changes in the actual climate system rather than a global-average increase in surface air temperature (ie Global Warming).
"Global warming" isn't that important really. What's important for humans are the effects on precipitation regimes, snowpack, winds and to a lesser extent local temperature that occur dynamically from altering the Earth's radiation budget. And that's called Climate Change.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:03pm PT
|
All I'm trying to illustrate to Dr. F is that there IS NOT a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:19pm PT
|
And all I'm trying to do is pointing out to you that you're wrong, there IS a consensus amongst climate scientists that observed late 20th century trends are anthropogenically forced.
There is a small minority of atmospheric scientists who disagree, which is good because it keeps everyone on their toes. There is a slightly larger contingent of scientists with no specific expertise in meteorology or oceanography who, for whatever reason, have become vocally skeptical. But no purely frequentist statistical study (like the one you quoted) is going to illustrate that fact, and no experienced statistical practitioner would claim that it would.
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:22pm PT
|
This argument is kinda like the one made by the "intelligent design" crowd. You can show them 9,999 pieces of evidence that prove evolution but they hold out until the 10,000 piece is shown. (Actually, then we start on the next 10,000...)
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:34pm PT
|
Dr. F
I am very happy for you !!!
You won!
Yeah! Higher taxes & more government control !
(and the world's carbon emissions will continue to increase as the US flogs itself)
Nice work liberal environmentalists, way to walk the talk you f*#king hypocrites
:)
|
|
Bamm_Bamm
Social climber
I'm lost, Please help me!!!
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
|
I am a Doctor in Biology with an Emphasis on Evolution.
But my job is in Air Pollution Environmental Science
My title is Senior Scientist of the Air Pollution Compliance Division
And yes, this is an area of my expertise
So lets get this straight. You are a biologist with an emphasis in Evolution that works for the Air Pollution Compliance division of some unnamed region.
And this makes you "expert" enough to proclaim that everyone that doesn't agree with you "doesn't have a brain."
What have you ever written on this topic that demonstrates you know the reason behind any type of climate change? One that shows you are an expert.
NOT on the effects, the actual reason behind it.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 07:46pm PT
|
Well argued points made by you all, with a bit of flame to add that zesty feeling!
If I can direct your attention back to the global map again and ask you if changing 1 or 1 million light bulbs to CFL will have
any effect on the slope of CO2 increase being fed by this
world wide firestorm? I think not.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff319/12eric/firemap2009061-20090702048x1024.jpg
But my theory is that CO2 really does not matter.
Our air: 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon,
0.038% carbon dioxide.
Its not the economy stupid, its the Sun stupid...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:47pm PT
|
There is a small minority of atmospheric scientists who disagree, which is good because it keeps everyone on their toes.
So, now only 'atmospheric scientists' are the qualified ones? Everyone else is wrong about climate change or cyclical patterns of climate?
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:00pm PT
|
"So, now only 'atmospheric scientists' are the qualified ones? Everyone else is wrong about climate change or cyclical patterns of climate? "
Are you honestly trying to say that e.g. a geologist (or some random blowhard on the internet) has as much familiarity and expertise with atmospheric dynamics and radiative transfer as a specialist in the field?
Although they're both MDs, if I were unfortunate enough to have a serious neurological condition then I'd want to see a brain surgeon rather than a proctologist. (Cue cheap gag about having your head stuffed up your arse...)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:03pm PT
|
(or some random blowhard on the internet)
Someone calling for me?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:05pm PT
|
Will, answer my question.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:08pm PT
|
"But my theory is that CO2 really does not matter.
Our air: 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon,
0.038% carbon dioxide. "
OK, this is getting ridiculously obtuse now, so I'm going to duck out. I have no problem with having a reasoned debate, and I would even be prepared to explain why your reasoning is spurious. But I have a feeling this is just going to degenerate into some childish spat along left/right political divisions, and frankly I find that tedious.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
|
"Will, answer my question. "
I believe I did. I made the not unreasonable statement that on any subject the opinion of an experienced professional carries more weight than that of even a moderately informed lay-person.
Need medical advice? Get an MD, not an epidemiologist.
Need to remodel your house? Get a builder, not a realtor.
Want to know about climate dynamics? Ask an atmospheric dynamicist, not a seismologist.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!