06-02-2016, 01:32 AM
OK. Let's turn to logic rather than emotion. What upset me is that I pointed out data several times and you never acknowledged the data. It's hard to be ignored and not get upset. I'm sorry if my "head in the sand" comment was offensive. I was just saying (poorly) that the greenhouse effect is not debatable. The magnitude of the effect is what scientists are trying to figure out. When you add insulation, things end up warmer (in a cold environment, like the earth's environment which is outer space).
Now on to the data. You cited an AMS survey to say there's a consensus against AGW, but the data you cited doesn't line up that way. Please see the data from that AMS survey (http://bit.ly/25nAvu0). I pointed to this data that shows a consensus that meteorologists think global warming is a problem (67% think it's all or mostly man-made, 14% who think GW is half man-made and half natural and only 13% who think it's mostly or all natural). That was one of your facts and it pointed to the converse of what you were saying. I wanted you to address this, but you ignored it. Feel free to address it now.
Then you pointed to 31,400 scientists who have signed a petition saying they believe global warming is not an issue that we need to worry about. The implication was that there's a huge number who disagree with the "consensus" and therefore it's not a consensus. I wanted you to explain how this big number was significant rather than just throwing it out there and saying, "See! There's no consensus for AGW". It requires considering the total number of people would might sign the petition. I took some time to think about this and came up with the following analysis. I did this before I stated the 90% number in my earlier post. I wasn't just repeating what I had heard. I was doing some math and didn't figure I had to show my work. No one else has shown their work in this debate yet, but here goes. There are about 250,000 to 400,000 scientists (science, math and engineering majors) who graduate from college each year (http://1.usa.gov/1ROWNug). It was more like 250,000 in the 70s and now it is closer to 400,000. Let's assume people live 40 years after college. Given US life expectancies and average graduation ages, this is conservative. Using 250,000 for all 40 years is also conservative. 40 * 250,000 = 10 million. I figure only a fraction of these people know about the petition, but I think its reasonable to bet that fraction is higher among those who agree with the petition. If we assume there are 1 million of the 10 million who would sign the petition that's means 9 million or 90% wouldn't. I figured that assuming 3% of those willing to sign actually did is a conservative number. That's where I got the 90%. Not from some survey that you think it flawed.
Speaking of surveys, I did a google search to see if I could find other survey data that wasn't on a pro- or anti- AGW site. Here's what I found from Pew Research. (http://pewrsr.ch/1Jh2RMX). If you dig into, you see that groups that are more knowledgable are more likely to think climate change is man-made. Of course, surveys aren't the key finding. That's just a barometer of opinion (educated opinion for the AAAS survey of scientists, but still just opinion). What does the actual research and data suggest? Well I googled Steven Schwartz paper on heat capacity and global temperate change to see if there was a rebuttal that was based on data and analysis. It turns out that Schwartz simplified the problem of the heat sink for the earth a bit too much and when you apply a more accurate model you get different results (greater temperature rise). See (http://1.usa.gov/1P7BggB) and (http://bit.ly/1sNNcz5). Another item I came across this week as I was educating myself about this topic was a paperpublished in Nature (one of the two toughest journals to get into, Science being the other one) that explains the slow down in the rise in global temperatures over the last decade using a model that takes into account the decadal La Nina cooling effect in the Pacific Ocean. When this is incorporated into their model, the effect from the greenhouse hasn't diminished at all, there has just been cooling due to local weather patterns. When this weather pattern reverts back to its mean, the expectation is we will go right back to the upward trajectory we have fallen out of, meaning faster temperature rise in the next decade to get back on track.
I know there is uncertainty in this area of science. Climate scientists don't have a perfect model for the complex system, but they do have good models that they are trying to improve all the time. Right now, the best estimates are for continued warming due to the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 and the most likely scenario is not good in 50 to 100 years. Humans and the earth will adapt and survive, but at what cost? I don't think it's wise to focus on the data that says things are going to be fine. Especially when there are lots of papers and articles that point to less rosy scenarios. Understanding those scenarios is crucial. Ignoring them is hazardous to future generation's health.
I actually didn't think global warming was a big deal 10 years ago. I thought Al Gore was a kook and all the doomsday prophesies were crazy. But then at some point I started to really listen to climatologists and read what they were saying and try to filter out the political noise (which is why I wasn't listening in the first place) and realized that the scientists who were studying climate change were not crazy nut jobs, but scientist like me who wanted to understand the world better. Then I realized most all of them were saying the same thing. Finally, considering the physics of energy absorption at different wavelengths means that we are creating a one-way blanket up in the atmosphere that allows the sun's energy (visible and UV light) to come in and then traps the earth's thermal energy (lower frequency energy that CO2 absorbs much more of). This is going to warm the planet up. It's just a question of how much. Hopefully there is some secondary effect that will minimize the pain future generations might have, but it seems like a poor choice to assume that will happen just because the system is complex and there's no perfect model for it (there never will be, we have to deal with what we know today). Please try to ignore the politics of the issue and consider the science. There's not a conspiracy among climate scientists to use AGW as a means to make government bigger. Government can get bigger all on it own.
I'm not sure I've addressed all your concerns and questions, but there's some data for you to sift through. Please don't respond with lots of words (like OBJECTIVE and FACTS and BALANCE) and no analysis. I'm not a sheep following Al Gore because the media told me to. That's what I've heard plenty of in the last few days and I'm tired of it and it most definitely won't change my mind. Your best and most useful argument so far was sending the Steven Schwartz paper. The rebuttals I read reduced the impact of that data point, but it was still very useful.
Now on to the data. You cited an AMS survey to say there's a consensus against AGW, but the data you cited doesn't line up that way. Please see the data from that AMS survey (http://bit.ly/25nAvu0). I pointed to this data that shows a consensus that meteorologists think global warming is a problem (67% think it's all or mostly man-made, 14% who think GW is half man-made and half natural and only 13% who think it's mostly or all natural). That was one of your facts and it pointed to the converse of what you were saying. I wanted you to address this, but you ignored it. Feel free to address it now.
Then you pointed to 31,400 scientists who have signed a petition saying they believe global warming is not an issue that we need to worry about. The implication was that there's a huge number who disagree with the "consensus" and therefore it's not a consensus. I wanted you to explain how this big number was significant rather than just throwing it out there and saying, "See! There's no consensus for AGW". It requires considering the total number of people would might sign the petition. I took some time to think about this and came up with the following analysis. I did this before I stated the 90% number in my earlier post. I wasn't just repeating what I had heard. I was doing some math and didn't figure I had to show my work. No one else has shown their work in this debate yet, but here goes. There are about 250,000 to 400,000 scientists (science, math and engineering majors) who graduate from college each year (http://1.usa.gov/1ROWNug). It was more like 250,000 in the 70s and now it is closer to 400,000. Let's assume people live 40 years after college. Given US life expectancies and average graduation ages, this is conservative. Using 250,000 for all 40 years is also conservative. 40 * 250,000 = 10 million. I figure only a fraction of these people know about the petition, but I think its reasonable to bet that fraction is higher among those who agree with the petition. If we assume there are 1 million of the 10 million who would sign the petition that's means 9 million or 90% wouldn't. I figured that assuming 3% of those willing to sign actually did is a conservative number. That's where I got the 90%. Not from some survey that you think it flawed.
Speaking of surveys, I did a google search to see if I could find other survey data that wasn't on a pro- or anti- AGW site. Here's what I found from Pew Research. (http://pewrsr.ch/1Jh2RMX). If you dig into, you see that groups that are more knowledgable are more likely to think climate change is man-made. Of course, surveys aren't the key finding. That's just a barometer of opinion (educated opinion for the AAAS survey of scientists, but still just opinion). What does the actual research and data suggest? Well I googled Steven Schwartz paper on heat capacity and global temperate change to see if there was a rebuttal that was based on data and analysis. It turns out that Schwartz simplified the problem of the heat sink for the earth a bit too much and when you apply a more accurate model you get different results (greater temperature rise). See (http://1.usa.gov/1P7BggB) and (http://bit.ly/1sNNcz5). Another item I came across this week as I was educating myself about this topic was a paperpublished in Nature (one of the two toughest journals to get into, Science being the other one) that explains the slow down in the rise in global temperatures over the last decade using a model that takes into account the decadal La Nina cooling effect in the Pacific Ocean. When this is incorporated into their model, the effect from the greenhouse hasn't diminished at all, there has just been cooling due to local weather patterns. When this weather pattern reverts back to its mean, the expectation is we will go right back to the upward trajectory we have fallen out of, meaning faster temperature rise in the next decade to get back on track.
I know there is uncertainty in this area of science. Climate scientists don't have a perfect model for the complex system, but they do have good models that they are trying to improve all the time. Right now, the best estimates are for continued warming due to the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 and the most likely scenario is not good in 50 to 100 years. Humans and the earth will adapt and survive, but at what cost? I don't think it's wise to focus on the data that says things are going to be fine. Especially when there are lots of papers and articles that point to less rosy scenarios. Understanding those scenarios is crucial. Ignoring them is hazardous to future generation's health.
I actually didn't think global warming was a big deal 10 years ago. I thought Al Gore was a kook and all the doomsday prophesies were crazy. But then at some point I started to really listen to climatologists and read what they were saying and try to filter out the political noise (which is why I wasn't listening in the first place) and realized that the scientists who were studying climate change were not crazy nut jobs, but scientist like me who wanted to understand the world better. Then I realized most all of them were saying the same thing. Finally, considering the physics of energy absorption at different wavelengths means that we are creating a one-way blanket up in the atmosphere that allows the sun's energy (visible and UV light) to come in and then traps the earth's thermal energy (lower frequency energy that CO2 absorbs much more of). This is going to warm the planet up. It's just a question of how much. Hopefully there is some secondary effect that will minimize the pain future generations might have, but it seems like a poor choice to assume that will happen just because the system is complex and there's no perfect model for it (there never will be, we have to deal with what we know today). Please try to ignore the politics of the issue and consider the science. There's not a conspiracy among climate scientists to use AGW as a means to make government bigger. Government can get bigger all on it own.
I'm not sure I've addressed all your concerns and questions, but there's some data for you to sift through. Please don't respond with lots of words (like OBJECTIVE and FACTS and BALANCE) and no analysis. I'm not a sheep following Al Gore because the media told me to. That's what I've heard plenty of in the last few days and I'm tired of it and it most definitely won't change my mind. Your best and most useful argument so far was sending the Steven Schwartz paper. The rebuttals I read reduced the impact of that data point, but it was still very useful.