| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 JBG.historypolitics... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 32 (31-Mar-2008 12:32:44) |
Try Thomas Kuhn. My old philosophy books are all over the place but for an idea ( apologies for the source, Wikipedia, but it is a start ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn As you can tell I am not good with links! I'd welcome your thoughts on this. regards Jonathan |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3480 (31-Mar-2008 17:44:59) |
Starviking wrote: Starviking, I do quote scientific papers and sites all the time.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3481 (31-Mar-2008 18:12:06) |
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
a very interesting and comprehensive link on this subject. and a link to the new climate realist organization http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
Last Edited By: Nightwatch2
31-Mar-2008 22:43:29.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
jim3au |
|||
|
Posts: 1402 (31-Mar-2008 22:59:46) |
The article sounds good and even obvious. It is so obvious in fact that one has to ask why no one else has produced serious study of like principles before.
That has always been the problem with ani-global warming articles that I have read before.
The are a bit like the old smoking commercials produced by scientists. My aunt smoked. She lived until 94 so smoking cannot do you much harm. Or alternatively, Fred died of lung cancer at 45 but none of his smoker friends did so smoking cannot be the problem or alternatively, the coughing is good for you. The quote 18,000 feet as the point at which the atmosphere is half as dense as at ground level. I did not know it was that high. This scientist they quote who has found that cosmic radiation has an effect on cloud formation, that is an interesting one. I would like to see some proofs of that. After giving me a lesson on electromagnetic radiation, they are dismissing one of the legs of their theory as "galactic cosmic rays". I accept what the writer has said, that a person has to take the work of at least some other scientists on faith because there are too many disciplines involved, but I do have some idea that these 'cosmic rays' are a miniscule amount of the electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth. If these things can be sufficient to affect cloud formation then a gas that is only about one percent of the atmosphere has to have some possibility of being important too, although how I would not pretend to know. Then he dismisses the melting/retreating ice caps and glaciers in a few paragraphs saying that the data is contradictory. That does not make it any the less worthwhile to study. Antarctica and its icecap, is a major engine of weather and climate in the Southern Hemisphere. To a much less extent, the Arctic is in the Northern Hemisphere. Anything that affects the dimensions, temperature or reflective ability of these regions is going to change climates. It is a very interesting article but all it shows is that more research is desirable. Everything that James A. Peden said about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is true I am sure. But a good high school physics student would know all this. There is not much need for cross discipline expertise here. The fact that the biologic activity is greater in warmer periods would account for increases in CO2 as well. I guess the task then is to find some expert who explains the link between global warming and CO2 because for sure, this article has nothing about causality in it. Of course, if it is a biologic cause or he has not got his physics right, then we are back to square one. With his bottle top on the wall example, he makes the assumption that the atmosphere is one molecule thick and it is not. He suggests that the major components of the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen can play no part in the greenhouse effect? Did he say that these two gases allow electromagnetic radiation to pass through them without heating? Electromagnetic radiation does not make one trip through the atmosphere; it ricochets around quire a bit. If carbon dioxide passes its increase in heat to adjoining molecules through conduction almost immediately … Anyway, he raises a good question, one to which I hope someone has a good answer. |
||
|
Starviking |
|||
|
Posts: 145 ( 1-Apr-2008 02:30:29) |
Nightwatch2 wrote: Nightwatch, please address the point I was responding to, YOU wrote: "A suggestion - try applying the same standards to that side of the debate."Now, perhaps I am taking you up wrong - but to me that seems like you wanted ME to go to the 'Global Warming/Climate Change Hysterics' and ask them for comprehensive references to satisfy YOU. That's your job. Also, you say: "Global Warming/Climate Change Hysterics all do - quote blogs and nonsense by anyone who says what they want to hear despite lack of qualifications, questionable motives (lobby or paid agents), or simply a political ax to grind". That's a very broad generalisation, with a lot of paranoia thrown in. As a scientist, I see an awful lot more lack of qualifications, questionable motives, and political ax-grinding in the anti-AGW blogs quoted here. Starviking |
||
|
JBG.historypolitics... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 36 ( 1-Apr-2008 10:57:20) |
"That's a very broad generalisation, with a lot of paranoia thrown in. As a scientist, I see an awful lot more lack of qualifications,
questionable motives, and political ax-grinding in the anti-AGW blogs quoted here. "
That is an interesting statement. I suppose I fall into the "anti-AGW' camp so I'd disagree with the first two criticisms but you are right that political considerations come more into play on sceptical sites than AGW sites. When I say "come into play" I mean, simply being openly considered. AGW sites often substitute for the political the moral/religious angle. For me, I like to see what all sorts of people think so I browse many sites. I see hysteria and I see rational argument all over the place. Problem is that the proposal is AGW. The onus rests on AGW not the other way around as I see it. PS Starviking, did you check up on Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms? regards Jonathan |
||
|
Starviking |
|||
|
Posts: 146 ( 1-Apr-2008 12:17:53) |
JBG wrote:
"That's a very broad generalisation, with a lot of paranoia thrown in. As a scientist, I see an awful lot more lack of qualifications, questionable motives, and political ax-grinding in the anti-AGW blogs quoted here. "That is true, a lot of AGW stuff is very moralizing. JBG wrote: For me, I like to see what all sorts of people think so I browse many sites. I see hysteria and I see rational argument all over the place. Problem is that the proposal is AGW. The onus rests on AGW not the other way around as I see it.I'd put it this way - the observation is GW (I must say I prefer 'Climate Change' instead of 'Global Warming'). The theories are AGW, Natural Global Warming (Solar Cycle) and No Global Warming (Statistical & Carbon Sinks) . I'm sure I've missed a lot. Each side has an onus to prove their points. Mixing this all up is the multi-disciplinary nature of Climate Change - Geology, Marine Science, Soil Science, Agronomy, Atmospheric Physics & Chemistry, Solar Science, Industrial Science, and a lot more besides. Big results in the history of science have proceeded from observations to theorising to acceptance through mainly one field. In the case of Climate Change it's less of a big result and more of a forensic examination of our climate and the factors that are influencing it. JBG wrote: PS Starviking, did you check up on Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms?I haven't had a chance yet - I've got side tracked by the middlebury.net link Nightwatch2 posted yesterday. I've got a lot of reference to go through... 
Starviking |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3482 ( 1-Apr-2008 17:22:49) |
jim3au,
"The article sounds good and even obvious. It is so obvious in fact that one has to ask why no one else has produced serious study of like principles before. " there is quite a lot. That article is a summation of a lot of scientific studies. You haven't seen them, because the Agenda-Journalists of the Propaganda Press haven't published them. for further scientific references; http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ http://www.co2science.org/ http://friendsofscie http://climatesci.org/nce.org/ http://www.icecap.us/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/accurate_climate_change_assessment_an_impossible_task_.html http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html and follow the links within those. "This scientist they quote who has found that cosmic radiation has an effect on cloud formation, that is an interesting one. I would like to see some proofs of that." its a theory that is still being developed and investigated with scientific studies on-going. Read the book 'The chilling stars" "It is a very interesting article but all it shows is that more research is desirable." no kidding!!!! in the meantime, lets completely destroy the economies of every country on earth based on the CO2 theory of greenhouse gas warming without any further study! (rolls eyes in disgust) starvking, "Nightwatch, please address the point I was responding to, YOU wrote: "A suggestion - try applying the same standards to that side of the debate." " you seem to have missed the point. The Global Warming Hysterics make the claim that no one who is not a scientist in a specific discipline can have no voice in the debate, and none who might get funding from a "suspect source' is credible. Apply the same standard to the Hysterics side of the debate - anyone who is not a scientist credentialed in a specific field can have no input to any issue outside of his specialty. That eliminates not only many like Algore the Hysterical but also; Dr. Hansen outside of his specialty, most of the IPCC who commented on issues outside of their specialties, the IPCC writers who actually wrote the summary for policymakers BEFORE the actual reports were written - which were then "adjusted" to match the summary, the many editorial writers who pontificate, people like you and me, etc., etc. Also, anyone who gets funding to come up with a specific answer - so all of those scientists who are personally invested in global warming research that presupposes CO2 greenhouse gas warming are therefore eliminated from the debate since they are paid agents, Dr. Hansen again who was paid by Mr. Soros 3/4 of a million $$ to run his global warming propaganda crusade, the so-called "consensus scientists" who are all paid to develop their fraudulant studies, and again, most of the IPCC. an independent review of the scientists who contributed and wrote the IPCC reports (not including the many scientists who quit in disgust because of the political corruption that is rampant within the IPCC) eliminated all the scientists and policy writers who were not within their specialty or who were working for funded grants to push anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming. After those were all eliminated from the roster there were only four (4) who could make the claim of being unbiased. So we are to destroy the entire world economy based on the word of four (4) "scientists" who push a political fraud with a scientific scandal that has been refuted by over four hundred (400) independent scientists at just the recent International Conference on Climate Change in NY? http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm THAT is what I am referring to by the statement that you should apply the same standard. In addition, consider the incredible failure of journalistic ethics (admittedly a gross contradiction of terms) in the coverage of climate change issues and the propaganda that passes for news coverage of scientists and events, such as the above mentioned conference, that don't fall in line with the partisan focus. you guys are being lied to and you defend the liars.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
Harry Flashman |
|||
|
Posts: 340 ( 3-Apr-2008 05:55:08) |
'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News website Story from BBC NEWS: Published: 2008/04/03 00:26:05 GMT, © BBC MMVIII http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years. Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none. The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions Terry Sloan This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure. Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Wrong path "We started on this game because of Svensmark's work," said Terry Sloan from Lancaster University. "If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal." Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind - streams of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun. The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth. That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate. The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong. Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times. "For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News. "So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing." Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness. And for the following cycle, no correlation was found. Limited effect "This work is important as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data," commented Dr Giles Harrison from Reading University, a leading researcher in the physics of clouds. His own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation. The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of the Sun by a factor of about 13 to one. According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple. "We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right. "So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions." Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk Well, so much for that "good" idea. |
||
|
kell553 |
|||
|
Posts: 762 ( 3-Apr-2008 08:27:29) |
Unfortunately Mr. Black has based his argument on a pretty spectacular flaw. The sun is NOT the source of the cosmic rays. It is the suns increased activity
(and stronger magnetic field during the past few energetic cycles) that keeps cosmic rays from deep space away. Once the sun goes into a quiet period (which it
now has over this past year) the suns field will weaken and then allow the extra solar radiation to hit the earth.
Note this: He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct. Again, the stronger activity keeps the Cosmic radiation away. It is NOT the source. So according to the actual theory a stronger solar output will a. Warm up the earth due to increased Solar heating. b. Prevent cosmic rays from reaching the earth to create the cooling cloud cover. Lockwood's error is so fundamentally wrong it leaves the impression he is intentionally misstating it knowing a reporter would have no clue and would print it as gospel. YES: I am calling Lockwood a liar. (EDIT) If you look in the articles second section, paras 4, 5, and 6; it clearly states what Svenmark's theory says. Lockwood gets it backward and the reporter never catches it. Also note the way they have treated an opposing theory: We started on this game The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions So, they intentionally misquoted the actual theory. Then they proclaim their research disproves it, while providing no evidence of that research. Then we have the insistence that of course they are correct so we have to get on the carbon band wagon. It strains their credibility to the point of disbelief.
Last Edited By: kell553
3-Apr-2008 09:01:02.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
