12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarI understand what you're saying.
Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying they disagree about. I'm not trying to say that greenhouse gasses do not make the atmosphere warmer, I'm saying that the degree to which man's pollution is causing the warm up is debated.
As I pointed out, the sun's cycle plays a big part in whether the earth is in a warming or cooling cycle. The ocean current ...[text shortened]... into the atmosphere. So how much of the warm up is completely due to man is in question.
You're wrong, is what I'm saying. There isn't a big question about whether or not the human impact outweighs all of those other factors. It's not debated.
What *is* debated, is what the actual effects are going to be--whether or not it's a problem worth addressing, and what the best way to address the problem is.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarNo, I'm not saying it is a given.
[b]There isn't a big question about whether or not the human impact outweighs all of those other factors. It's not debated.
So you are saying that it is a give that the impact humans are having on the enviroment outweighs all the other factors?[/b]
I am saying it's the accepted conclusion based on the available theoretical and empirical evidence. The debate that you think exists in our community--the community of atmospheric scientists--does not exist.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectCertain elements in our society wants to FORCE controversy into the issue so they can use those newly created false disagreements to bolster companies not wanting to comply but simply bribe congressmen to overlook pollution so the bottom line doesn't keeps going higher and higher.
No, I'm not saying it is a given.
I am saying it's the accepted conclusion based on the available theoretical and empirical evidence. The debate that you think exists in our community--the community of atmospheric scientists--does not exist.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's exactly what it is. It's rather analagous to the attempt of the various varieties of creationists to magnify small disagreements within the community of biologists over the minutae of evolutionary mechanisms, and use those disagreements to claim that there's a serious crisis within evolutionary theory. "Teach the controversy," they say, when there really is NO controversy.
Certain elements in our society wants to FORCE controversy into the issue so they can use those newly created false disagreements to bolster companies not wanting to comply but simply bribe congressmen to overlook pollution so the bottom line doesn't keeps going higher and higher.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarThe overall trend is warming, and it is predicted quite well by our climate models but only when they include anthropogenic forcing. If there's a cool year now and again, *that* is the natural variation. Global warming or climate change does *not* mean that every year is necessarily hotter than the one before. It means that, ten or fifteen years from now, temperatures are more likely to be warmer than not, and that temperatures today are more likely to be warmer than they were ten or fifteen years ago. It's the difference between *climate* and *weather.*
[b]I am saying it's the accepted conclusion based on the available theoretical and empirical evidence.
If that is true, then why did the earth cool last year?[/b]
A note on "global cooling" that I like. Crackpots will often point to a period of cooling that occurred around 1950 - 1970 and use that to argue against pollution regulation. I find this amusing, because if you look at the facts surrounding that, it ultimately *supports* regulation. It is true that at the time, meteorologists were confused about long-term climate trends, and it is true that there was a period of global cooling. We now know that the cooling has to do with sulfate aerosols, which happen to be very good at reflecting radiation back to space. They were regulated (because of acid rain, not because of climate impact--that was unknown at the time), and then there was less sulfate. The cooling trend ended, allowing the greater warming trend to be recognized. It's a story of regulation mitigating a significant human impact on the climate!
12 Oct 08
We'll just have to see how well your model works over the next 10 years. There are scientists out there who believe the sun is a major factor in global warming and the fact that the sun is headed into a low sun spot cycle, the earth is due to cool. The year that it cooled just happened to be the first year of the sun spot cycle.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarI think you are confusing "scientists" with "pseudoscientists." No scientist has been able to identify a clear heating-cooling cycle associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle. Also, changes in radiative forcings--including those caused by sunspots--*are* included in the models currently used by climatologists. Human effects outweigh those caused by variations in solar cycles.
We'll just have to see how well your model works over the next 10 years. There are scientists out there who believe the sun is a major factor in global warming and the fact that the sun is headed into a low sun spot cycle, the earth is due to cool. The year that it cooled just happened to be the first year of the sun spot cycle.
Ah, but this diversion has taken too long! I need to go back to Doing Science! (Which, this evening unfortunately has nothing to do with climate or tornadoes, but a rather boring case study of the effect of boundary layer convection on moisture fields...*sigh*)
I also feel the need to apologize for the fact that my entire discussion here is an Argument From Authority ("I'm a meteorologist so LISTEN TO ME!"😉 which ultimately makes it weak. But I've already wasted too much time on this, so there you have it.
12 Oct 08
I guess the scientists mentioned in this article are just psuedo-scientists:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectWell I for one am glad you pipped in. It's good to hear real scientists chime in about this and other issues. I am just a photonics technician and so don't have a whole lot of authority so anyone can disagree with my prognostications! Come back when you get through the boundary!
I think you are confusing "scientists" with "pseudoscientists." No scientist has been able to identify a clear heating-cooling cycle associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle. Also, changes in radiative forcings--including those caused by sunspots--*are* included in the models currently used by climatologists. Human effects outweigh those caused by variat ...[text shortened]... ely makes it weak. But I've already wasted too much time on this, so there you have it.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarWow. Astronomers are *totally* qualified to make statements about climate. I'll soon be publishing a book on how black holes are caused by the jet stream, too.
I guess the scientists mentioned in this article are just psuedo-scientists:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
[b]Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof ...[text shortened]... Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.[/b]
Seriously, though, if you have a citation from a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal, I'll look at it, take it into context, and change my tune.
12 Oct 08
I also feel the need to apologize for the fact that my entire discussion here is an Argument From Authority ("I'm a meteorologist so LISTEN TO ME!" which ultimately makes it weak. But I've already wasted too much time on this, so there you have it.
No need to apologize, there are alot of people around here who will eat up every word you say because they agree with it.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarSo what do you think about the people that I mentioned earlier, the two people in my department who want Sarah Palin for US president, who would also dismiss this sunspot thing as ridiculous pseudoscience, and acknowledge that the impact of humans on the climate is the most significant forcing mechanisms? I suppose you have no assurance these people actually exist, any more than that I am actually an atmospheric scientist, so you can just accuse me of lying. But I assure you, they are anti-regulation and anti-Al-Gore, but they are also trained scientists who study the atmosphere. I promise you they do not believe that humans are the dominant factor in global warming because *I* tell them so!
[b]I also feel the need to apologize for the fact that my entire discussion here is an Argument From Authority ("I'm a meteorologist so LISTEN TO ME!" which ultimately makes it weak. But I've already wasted too much time on this, so there you have it.
No need to apologize, there are alot of people around here who will eat up every word you say because they agree with it.[/b]