The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Personally, I think that Gore and others have really screwed it up for many republicans who might have otherwise been convinced of the data when presented honestly. 

 

We finally agree on something, Gore did misrepresent some data, but he is not important to the topic because he is not a climate researcher. 

Organized opposition and internet myths are to blame too. Another reason is that most people do not read the scientific literature. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think the American education system is the link for many of us questioning global warming, I think we are questioning in spite  of it.  Being a relatively recent graduate, I certainly had my fair share of indoctrination in the school system.  I would also suspect that several of the posters here were out of the school system before the global warming bandwagon hit the school system.  It simply was not of serious social concern until fairly recently when politicians got involved and began twisting the data and presenting it in dishonest ways to get the public on board. 

 

Personally, I think that Gore and others have really screwed it up for many republicans who might have otherwise been convinced of the data when presented honestly.  I  personally am not convinced that the trajectory of climate change is as dire as predicted.  And this is coming from an environmentally conscious, green-leaning Independent voter. 

 

There is a closer link to watching FAUX News. I don't know know how old you are but Global Warming was an issue in the mid 1950's. That is why I've never appealed to politicians for support or rejection of the science. Go to the actual scientific literature. Argue all we want about the political response. The science has demonstrated the CO2 traps heat. That more CO2 means more trapped heat. That the earth has heated up 1-1/2 degrees C over the last 50 years or so in direct response to that added CO2.

 

Dr. Richard Alley one of the world's best climate scientists there is is a republican.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Except the GW hoaxers get a fortune that could be used to do some real good.

 

Are you saying that the climate researchers are hoaxers? Who told you that? guys funded by oil companies?

Remember, Climate researchers use sophisticated methods, advance math, and expensive lab equipment to study the climate. A google search is not a scientific research. 

 

Do you know who Tim Ball is? Tim Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist, but in fact he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996, he has not done scientific research.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Global Warming was an issue in the mid 1950's. 

 

Some say climate science’s first “Galileo moment” came in 1896, when Swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius, after years of laborious hand calculations, predicted eventual global warming due to CO2 emissions. Others point to 1938, when a British steam engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar, after poring over old CO2 and temperature records, stood alone before the Royal Meteorological Society to argue that global warming was already happening. Arrhenius and Callendar were ahead of their time, and failed to persuade others. 

 

By 2000, the evidence was overwhelming.

"The hypothesis proposed by Arrhenius in 1896—denied by almost every expert through the first half of the twentieth century and steadily advancing through the second half—was now as well accepted as any scientific proposal of its nature could ever be" Weart, p. 191.

 

Edited April 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Some say climate science’s first “Galileo moment” came in 1896, when Swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius, after years of laborious hand calculations, predicted eventual global warming due to CO2 emissions. Others point to 1938, when a British steam engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar, after poring over old CO2 and temperature records, stood alone before the Royal Meteorological Society to argue that global warming was already happening. Arrhenius and Callendar were ahead of their time, and failed to persuade others. 

 

By 2000, the evidence was overwhelming.

 

 

Agreed; I was thinking more along the lines of the popular press.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Dr. Richard Alley one of the world's best climate scientists

 

but ERayR thinks the video is just an interpretation or a hoax. Everything that contradicts ERayR's views is a hoax, an assumption, and a interpretation.  . 

Edited April 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[bcuzbcuz]

but ERayR thinks the video is just an interpretation or a hoax. Everything that contradicts ERayR's views is a hoax, an assumption, and a interpretation.  .

I would call it brainwashing. Here in Europe we have access to NBC and ABC news, along with Fox, not to mention BBC, EuroNews, CCN, Chilean, Russian, German and Scandanavian news. American news reports apparently sees things differently than any of the European news networks. Fox news has its very own, significantly different, point of view.

Statistics show that American education in math and science ranks well below many other countries. Check the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) scores.The USA has slipped from already bad scores to even worse scores from 2009 to 2014. US, from 25th down to 31st in math scores, 20th to 24th in science, and 11th to 21st in reading. The US lies below the OECD average in all three areas.

If someone who is already poor in reading and science watches primarily Fox news, their concept of reality will be significantly warped.

If brainwashing didn't work, product commercials would not be as repetitive as they are. News networks follow the same principle. Say the same thing over and over and over again. Eventually the viewer accepts the repeated claims as truth.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not saying the planet will die. But "stronger storms, longer droughts, more flooding, rising sea levels (as much as 20 ft)". Essentially, we are all in for some mass deaths because of it. That is such a bunch of bull. And this thread proves it.

 

And that part about food crops, we have discussed previously that plants grow better with more CO2 and more heat. So I am not worried.

 

Not 400 parts per million. I mean that is vastly so much more than 300 parts per million.

 

 

 

 

That might have more to do with it than the salt.

 

Stronger storms.

SEE http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/

 

Longer droughts.

SEE http://weather.about.com/od/drought/f/droughts.htm

 

More flooding.

SEE http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather/Floods.aspx

 

Rising sea levels.

SEE http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/11/miami-drowning-climate-change-deniers-sea-levels-rising

SEE http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/05/06/military-leaders-rising-sea-level-a-threat-to-virginia-north-carolina/

 

Crops don't do better with too much CO2

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

 

Yes that is a third more. Back when I was in school getting 100% on a test was very good. While getting 67% was barely passing.

[Zakuska]

Science is not about absolute certainty, but scientists have a high confidence that Evolution and CO2 caused Climate Change are true.

Doctors have a high confidence that something is wrong with a patient before surgery.

Climate drives CO 2 concentrations not the other way around. Thats what the Science says, Al Gores psuedo science not with standing.

How else is the earth going to be a garden of eden without a little ice melt and higher CO2 levels?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Incorrect.

SEE

[Zakuska]

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

How exactly does co2 CAUSE climate change, if over the recorded record it lags temperature change by hundreds of years?

Co2 is a side effect, not a driving factor.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

Climate drives CO 2 concentrations not the other way around. Thats what the Science says, Al Gores psuedo science not with standing.

How else is the earth going to be a garden of eden without a little ice melt and higher CO2 levels?

Or the opposite.  The warming starts an ice age.

 

D&C 133: 26 And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence.

 

I like to interpret the earth division in Genesis 10:25: "... the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan." as the earth coming out of the ice age period, sea levels rising and the Bering Strait being covered by the rising sea.  Once North America was separated from Asia by the rising ocean waters, the earth was divided.  If the earth returns to its former state, the ice will return, the oceans will lower and the Asia and North America are joined together again.

[thesometimesaint]

CO2 traps heat. Increased CO2 means increased trapped heat. There has been a 1-1/2 degree C rise in global temperatures over the last 50 years or so,

 

Here is the rest of the story.

SEE http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/co2-lags-temperature-basic.pdf

 

Here is what the AAAS has to say about AGW.

SEE http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-kicks-initiative-recognize-climate-change-risks

SEE http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996288

 

Here is what the AAAS is doing about it.

SEE http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-ramps-climate-science-communication

 

Here is what the scientists say about AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Zakuska]

Thanks for linking since I can't. So earths orbit and the sun seem to be the major drivers and the graph does indeed show a large lag between temperature and co2.

Besides stating the obvious re: 90% I disagree with the article about the feed back of Co2 because it fails to take in account sea algees, the rain forest and other forms of life that also absorb co2 when temperatures rise.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Co2 is a side effect, not a driving factor.

 

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming, as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase. 

 

 

Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past. The greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times. 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

 

Please read the scientific literature 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1013-5

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014725/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025044/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html

Edited April 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

I like it when skeptics contradict each other. Pogi doesn't think the temperature causes CO2 rise, Pogi said,  

 

The only thing that ice cores have proven is that temperature changes historically precede C02 changes by about 800 years, not the other way around.  You are trying to get us to believe that C02 causes temperature change, when history demonstrates that temperature changes precede or cause C02 changes.  This happens because C02 is released from ice and other ways as the temps rise.  Scientists say that this leads to "positive feedback" - Where increase in temp leads to increase in C02, which leads to increase in temp, and on and on we go spiraling out of control.  But for some reason, we never spiral out of control.  Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02).  Yet I am supposed to believe that C02 drives temperature change and not the other way around? 

 

On the contrary, we are saying the exact same thing - which is exactly what the data has always demonstrated.  I have said the above about 1 million times on this thread...are you REALLY going to pretend like I haven't been saying this all along?  You deceive even yourself Skeptic/MFT

 

Historically temps have always driven C02 change.  Obviously, since the industrial revolution, C02 levels are not going to follow the same natural path of temperature since we are creating more than nature normally would (that is what I was speaking to in the quote below).  This will affect temps slightly (I have always admitted as much), but the sun will always be the main driver.  C02 is a minor player. 

 

Follow the trend on that chart. Which way is the temperature trending? Clearly it has a strong trend downward, despite the skyrocketing C02.

 

 

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming, as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase. 

 

 

The positive feedback that you speak about was probably effected by water vapor more than C02.  What initiated the major drops in temp that eventually led to ice ages after the warm periods?  Drops in C02?  Couldn't be that, because C02 levels were still rising for around 800 years despite the plummeting temps.  We are talking about sharp drops in temperature despite climbing C02 levels.  C02 didn't even act as a buffer in the dropping temps or we would have seen a bell curve.  It simply is a minor player in climate. The only response that I have received from you guys on this fact is pure silence...chirp, chirp...chirp, chirp.

Edited April 12, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

The only thing that ice cores have proven is that temperature changes historically precede C02 changes by about 800 years, not the other way around.  You are trying to get us to believe that C02 causes temperature change, when history demonstrates that temperature changes precede or cause C02 changes.  This happens because C02 is released from ice and other ways as the temps rise.  Scientists say that this leads to "positive feedback" - Where increase in temp leads to increase in C02, which leads to increase in temp, and on and on we go spiraling out of control.  But for some reason, we never spiral out of control.  Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02).  Yet I am supposed to believe that C02 drives temperature change and not the other way around? 

 

 

Okay, sorry that I misrepresented what you said, but you misrepresent what I say too. 

Wait, "Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02)"

So according to you, how can Co2 be climbing if the temperatures go down? 

 

Here is what the scientists say, please read the scientific literature

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1013-5

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014725/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025044/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html

Edited April 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

What initiated the 10 degree celsius drop in temps after the warm periods?  C02?  Couldn't be that, because c02 levels were still rising for around 800 years despite the plummeting temps.  The only response that I have received from you guys on this fact is pure silence...chirp, chirp...chirp, chirp. 

 

A drop? It depends, what era are you talking about? Super-volcanic eruptions cause global cooling, even if the CO2 levels are high. 

So tell me, what period are you talking about?  In the periods I know, when CO2 levels decrease, the earth gets colder. 

 

and please read the scientific literature 

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1013-5

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014725/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025044/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html

 

Wait, you said "Historically, temperatures reach a point and then begin to trend downwards (despite the ever climbing C02)."

So according to you, how can CO2 levels be rising?  

Edited April 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the graph. Illustrates that at some point that the close co2 and temperature tracking (that Al gore toited as the silver bullet) is a myth. At some point it diverged. Showing Co2 as an effect.of the temerature.

It's simple common sense that when it gets warmer plants begin to thrive, more plants = more co2. The question is... why did the warm period end and the earth fall back into another ice age? Perhaps all the co2 we have realeased will be a catalyst to usher the world into a permenant garden state an end to the ice ages.

I like the conclusion TSOS earlier article Made.

Summary

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities.

More co2 = more / better food for us. His own article says the opposite of what he claims. LOL

According to the article you your self linked they do.

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming, as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.

Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past. The greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Please read the scientific literature

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1013-5

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014725/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025044/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html

Thanks for the graph. Illustrates that at some point that the close co2 and temperature tracking (that Al gore toited as the silver bullet) is a myth. At some point it diverged. Showing Co2 as an effect.of the temerature.

It's simple common sense that when it gets warmer plants begin to thrive, more plants = more co2. The question is... why did the warm period end and the earth fall back into another ice age? Perhaps all the co2 we have realeased will be a catalyst to usher the world into a permenant garden state an end to the ice ages.

Tsos said:

Crops don't do better with too much CO2

According to the article you your self linked they do.

Summary

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities.

More co2 = more / better food for us. His own article says the opposite of what he claims. LOL

Edited April 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Thanks for the graph. Illustrates that at some point that the close co2 and temperature tracking (that Al gore toited as the silver bullet) is a myth. At some point it diverged. Showing Co2 as an effect.of the temerature.

 

Your welcome, please read what I said in post 715. Please look at the graph carefully, you will disagree with it when you look at it carefully 

 

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots)

 

 

I have a question for you, About 80 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that? 

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the graph. Illustrates that at some point that the close co2 and temperature tracking (that Al gore toited as the silver bullet) is a myth. At some point it diverged. Showing Co2 as an effect.of the temerature.

It's simple common sense that when it gets warmer plants begin to thrive, more plants = more co2. The question is... why did the warm period end and the earth fall back into another ice age? Perhaps all the co2 we have realeased will be a catalyst to usher the world into a permenant garden state an end to the ice ages.

Tsos said:

According to the article you your self linked they do.

Summary

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities.

More co2 = more / better food for us. His own article says the opposite of what he claims. LOL

 

Absolutely incorrect.

SEE http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

[Nofear]

Note thesometimesaint linked the very same article that Zakuska quoted. They come to different conclusions. Why? More CO2 does indeed lead to more plant growth... it's just that the response by all plants isn't uniform. It may provide a competitive advantage to undesirable species. But maybe it will be for desirable species too. /shrug

 

From the same article:

 

A number of experiments have found that some plant species that respond positively to elevated CO₂ when grown alone experience decreased growth under elevated CO₂ when grown in mixed plant communities (Poorter & Navas 2003). This effect likely results because the direct positive effects of elevated CO₂ are outweighed by negative effects due to stimulation of the growth of competitors. Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ may therefore lead to changes in the composition of plant communities, as some species reap more of an advantage from the increased CO₂ than do others. In mixed-species experiments under high fertility conditions, C₄ plants decrease as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO₂. Similarly, under low fertility conditions, legumes increase as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO₂ (Poorter & Navas 2003).

 

Note: this is a drive by post only -- not one of the threads I've been following.

[Zakuska]

Your welcome, please read what I said in post 715. Please look at the graph carefully, you will disagree with it when you look at it carefully 

 

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots)

 

 

I have a question for you, About 80 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that?

I don't see why id disagree. The yellow dots lag the anartic temp, 12000-10000 years ago the global mean temp diverged, the global temp got warmer than the anartic. Co2 levels slightly decreased since and now are on the rise with our release of it.

80 million? Well it Had to be all that Dino flatulants in the air blocking the sun according to the Al Gore crowd. there's lots of co2 and meth in that.

[thesometimesaint]

Note thesometimesaint linked the very same article that Zakuska quoted. They come to different conclusions. Why? More CO2 does indeed lead to more plant growth... it's just that the response by all plants isn't uniform. It may provide a competitive advantage to undesirable species. But maybe it will be for desirable species too. /shrug

 

From the same article:

 

 

Note: this is a drive by post only -- not one of the threads I've been following.

 

Thinking back to the botany classes I took low these many years ago. Yes slight increases in CO2 concentration do lead to greater biomass. Unfortunately later studies have pointed out that with that greater biomass also comes greater water use, and less uptake of essential minerals. A roughly analogous in animals would be a slight uptick in calories from added sugar does give a bigger biomass, but at the expense of other needed water, vitamins, minerals, and such.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

80 million? Well it Had to be all that Dino flatulants in the air blocking the sun according to the Al Gore crowd. there's lots of co2 and meth in that.

 

How did dino release more CO2 than burning fossil fuels? Yes, dino probably did contribute to the rise of CO2, but they were not the primary cause. Thanks for admitting that an increase in CO2 causes warming. 

 

I don't see why id disagree. The yellow dots lag the anartic temp, 12000-10000 years ago the global mean temp diverged, the global temp got warmer than the anartic. Co2 levels slightly decreased since and now are on the rise with our release of it.

 

Deglaciation was the result of warming caused by orbital cycles, which released more CO2, which caused the global temperatures to rise. Localised warming (increased insolation in the south) spread across the globe. So yes, you have a lot to disagree with the graph. CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone. CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet. 

 

So never mind? 

 

Here is another graph that proves CO2 (not the sun) today is causing the planet to get warmer. It is true that the acceleration of the surface temp has slowed down, but the planet as a whole keep getting warmer very fast. 

 

Edited April 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian