[Budgie]

Butterflies!

 

[grawk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drizek /img/forum/go_quote.gif I made a comment about the Clean Air Act, but nobody responded to that...

One active theory among climate researchers is that the clean air act is partially responsible for the more rapid warming we've seen in the last couple of decades. Now that there are fewer polution caused clouds, more sunlight is making it into the atmosphere, causing warming.

It points out just how complex the ecosystem is, and how little data we actually have on the climate. Most current models are based on guesstimates put into lookup tables, rather than actual valid models. We're at least 10 years out from having enough computational power to actually have mathematical models that can handle little things like clouds. Right now, the climate grid is working on 1 pixel = 20 sq miles.

We need to do research. The vast majority of the people who are positive co2 is causing global warming are basing that off of something they read on the internet, or heard al gore say. The science isn't sure if the spikes in CO2 are cause by warming or are causing warming. We don't know if we're in a normal warming cycle or a manmade warming cycle. We don't know if man has a cooling or warming effect on the planet. We don't know much of anything on a global level. Heck, our weather models are only really accurate 4 hours out.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pole shift and/or Crustal Displacement can account for "Ice Ages" without resorting to global warming or cooling. There is evidence that, prior to its current position, the North Pole was in the vicinity of Hudson's Bay, thus much of North America was under ice. In the meantime, big, hairy elephants roamed the lush, warm plains of Siberia. Laz

Silly Laz, don't you know the big, hairy elephant that was flash frozen with his foliage lunch still in his belly is just an illusion?

 

[Rav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif One active theory among climate researchers is that the clean air act is partially responsible for the more rapid warming we've seen in the last couple of decades. Now that there are fewer polution caused clouds, more sunlight is making it into the atmosphere, causing warming. It points out just how complex the ecosystem is, and how little data we actually have on the climate. Most current models are based on guesstimates put into lookup tables, rather than actual valid models. We're at least 10 years out from having enough computational power to actually have mathematical models that can handle little things like clouds. Right now, the climate grid is working on 1 pixel = 20 sq miles. We need to do research. The vast majority of the people who are positive co2 is causing global warming are basing that off of something they read on the internet, or heard al gore say. The science isn't sure if the spikes in CO2 are cause by warming or are causing warming. We don't know if we're in a normal warming cycle or a manmade warming cycle. We don't know if man has a cooling or warming effect on the planet. We don't know much of anything on a global level. Heck, our weather models are only really accurate 4 hours out.

Good post, although i'd add 'unbiased' into the beginning of that last paragraph. It seems like you can only get funding if you're skewed in line with the current fashionable thinking...

 

[grawk]

Well, the researchers who use my system seem like they're not particularly biased. The bias happens in the summary page, not in the science

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif One active theory among climate researchers is that the clean air act is partially responsible for the more rapid warming we've seen in the last couple of decades. Now that there are fewer polution caused clouds, more sunlight is making it into the atmosphere, causing warming. It points out just how complex the ecosystem is, and how little data we actually have on the climate. Most current models are based on guesstimates put into lookup tables, rather than actual valid models. We're at least 10 years out from having enough computational power to actually have mathematical models that can handle little things like clouds. Right now, the climate grid is working on 1 pixel = 20 sq miles. We need to do research. The vast majority of the people who are positive co2 is causing global warming are basing that off of something they read on the internet, or heard al gore say. The science isn't sure if the spikes in CO2 are cause by warming or are causing warming. We don't know if we're in a normal warming cycle or a manmade warming cycle. We don't know if man has a cooling or warming effect on the planet. We don't know much of anything on a global level. Heck, our weather models are only really accurate 4 hours out.

I agree with you about the accuracy and resolution of predictive models, and about the need for more research. However, climatologists are quite convinced that the warming observed over the last century is at least partially due to greenhouse gases. The consensus of the IPCC says something to the effect that the warming is "very likely" attributable to greenhouse gas emissions. For scientists to have a consensus on "very likely" is pretty darn significant given how forthright scientists are about uncertainty, and it indicates a much higher level of knowledge than your post does.

 

[grawk]

The IPCC is a governmental body. It's not a scientific organization. It's a sham designed to get more funding. The climate researchers I interact with on a regular basis wouldn't say it's caused by greenhouse gasses. There's no agreement to whether CO2 levels are caused by or are a cause of temperature changes.

 

[acidbasement]

There are a small few vocal skeptics in the climatological community, who have received mainstream media attention in amounts disproportionately higher than their contributions to science. If anything, the government influence on IPCC statements has caused toning down of the language in order to delay the need for political action.

 

[grawk]

You realize I'm not basing anything off the media, right? That I actually work in the field?

 

[acidbasement]

Ah, excellent. Sorry, my mistake - I'm kind of out of it today due to baby-induced lack of sleep. I don't work in the field, but I did take several courses in atmospheric science before heading in more of a wildlife biology direction for grad school, and I have kept up a moderate level of interest in climate science.
Anyway, if the science is so unclear, then how is it that references to "the consensus view among climatologists" are able to be published in peer-reviewed journals? For example, Climatic Change (2008) 86:1–11. This would never make it past peer review in my field if it were not true, and I assume that other fields of science are similar.

 

[grawk]

No one is going to publish against the popular view right now because funding is being driven by fear. It's not that they know it's not man made, it's the cause and effect relationship are murky, the models are awful, and the system is REALLY complex. Like I said earlier, the clean air act correlation with warming is a variable that shows just how complex things are, and the danger to reacting too quickly.

The folks I work with are mostly concerned with making the models better, rather than publishing. We're doing the foundational research rather than the publishing research.

 

[serviam]

I thought this was an AUDIO site, not a political one (and I have a bridge to sell to anyone who doesn't think the global warming...oops, climate change...issue is purely a political one!). Please don't clutter this site with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with audio!

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by serviam /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought this was an AUDIO site, not a political one (and I have a bridge to sell to anyone who doesn't think the global warming...oops, climate change...issue is purely a political one!). Please don't clutter this site with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with audio!

But...but...but...we're having such a good discussion, learning a lot, and we're mostly being civil. This is good, very good.

Laz

 

[ER4 Lover]

here is members' lounge.
we can talk about any other topics here, science, photography.....(no politics)

 

[Budgie]

I have found a Google search for "case against global warming" produces some very well written and informative arguments against "man made" global warming. (also some junk as well-read at your own risk) Enough information to cause me to have serious doubts about the reliability of the global warming model.
As to a "consensus of scientist" being proof in and of itself,well, A consensus of scientist's once believed the earth to be flat.
In the 70's we (american public school students) were taught that we were entering another ice age (again, another consensus of scientists). Still waiting for that one!
My best resource is my cousin, who recently recieved her PHD in enviromental science. Neither she or her instructors are convinced that global warming is a real problem. To many variables left out of the models, too much presumed, to trust them.

But then again- Al Gore did invent the internet..........