I just knew I liked you guys for some reason!
I just knew I liked you guys for some reason!
Is there really any BAD weather???
I'm going to have to disagree with the concencious on this thread.
The media still treats this as a political issue, inclided to show both 'sides'. Worse, they tend to let the loudest liberal/conservative screamers on both sides have at it. From a political analogy standpoint, the extreme liberals are doomsdayists (Mangrove swamps in Boston), and the extreme conservatives are nit pickers (since this glacier is growing the whole theory is off, so there) and they get the most play because as always, the squeeky wheel...
The problem with these blowhards is that they do not represent the 'silent majority' doing the research itself. The IPCC report combined the efforts of 2500 leading scientists from around the world concluded that with 90% certainly humans are substantially changing the climate. The rest othe report, a worthy read, pens the current state of the science without the extremest banter...
Scientist have reached their conclusions through a variety of methods, including, most impressively, back modeling the atmosphere with different constants and independant variables, and only CO2 and greenhouse gases match the trends that we are already seeing...advancements thanks to super computers not possible but a few years ago...
Science is peer reviewed, science is scrutinized, science is presented to academia in cited papers and presentations. Science isn't in editorials from a right wing funded institute or a left leaning backpacking magazine.
As for the Observatory's role, I believe that they are doing the community a service by inviting leading scientists in the field to discuss their research and discuss their own conclusions, to allow for far greater scientific content to reach the public than the media will provide...
A few links..
Indicators of Climate Change in the Northeast:
New England Climate Assessment:
Last edited by JimS; 08-09-2007 at 09:27 AM.
Perhaps the consensus of some more prolific posters, but not of others. I happen to believe that the phenomena is real and should be a concern. I can also appreciate the views to the contrary that have been posted here and elsewhere. The overall consensus view of the scientific community is, I think, in support of the concept of global warming occuring now. Some exceptions to the process are evident and can always be pointed out, but the chaotic nature of "weather" and "climate" essentially mzke this a certainty. I don't necessarily think that we need to start building levees around Boston and New York City yet. But maybe the idea should be considered.
By the way the coming ice-age thoughts of the 70's were, in my recollection, more a factor of the "nuclear winter" ideas of the time. That scenario of large amounts of dust and debris thrown up into the upper atmosphere and blocking the sun was more a matter of increased international tensions and the pressures for SALT and SALT 2. Other references to the late 1800's, "the summer that wasn't" in New England also supported this idea. Finally in the aftermath of the eruption of Mount Pinatuba in the Phillipines in 1991, where global temperatures were seen to decrease for a couple of years.
But I could easily be mistaken in this as the 70's was one of the times that I was living in NH and spending a bunch of time in the Whites.
Often the science you hear on tv isn't peer reviewed or scrutinized. It's simply dramatic and mistakenly called science.Originally Posted by JimS
One problem I have is the disturbing amount of scientific research that proves exactly what they set out to prove. How could so many theories be correct? It seems that half of all research should be wrong. Since people make rational guesses I'll accept that slightly more than half of all theories should be correct.
The coming ice age in the 70's scare had nothing to do with nuclear winter, that was a separate issue. There was real science, peer reviewed and scrutinized that said we were spiralling into an ice age.
This is a topic I generally hate because so many people misunderstand what global warming is. There is no doubt in my mind that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer. That is about the only thing we can be certain of. Everything else is just a guess.
It's alarmism like Backpacker Magazine that is so disturbing. They get some things right. But they make claims that there will be tress on the top of Mount Washington in 80 years, the Outer Banks will be gone in 20 years. Anyone care to make a wager on that?
I heard that global warming caused those executions in Newark, NJ. Serious, it was so hot the robbers got so agitated they had to kill 3 people. Even though its been a fairly cool summer in the northeast.
Next up: Vermont City Marathon: May, 2011
The coming ice age predicitons in the 70s was made by the media. The climatologist were holding out. There was a play between the cooling effects of particulates and the warming effects of CO2 climatologist were waiting to see what would pan out.Originally Posted by Bill O
Not all climatologists have given in to global warming theories, which is what it is, a theory. Many researchers studying the affects of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere say it is still too early to say with certainty that man is the direct cause of our warming planet. I still hold to the idea that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and mans affect on the climate is minimal. The problem I have is that global warming has become an issue that is politically and financially prosperous. If we say that global warming is caused by man and we get enough people to believe it then it opens doors to regulate, which leads to financial gain, and those who stand to gain are those who cried global warming to begin with. If legitimate studies of global warming over a broad spectrum of researchers can come together and agree that we are affecting the weather on this planet and give concrete areas we need to work on then I'm all for fixing the problem but just to say that by 2030 we all must be driving little electric cars along with all the other restrictive regulations coming out of Washington is just propaganda.
Is there really any BAD weather???
I agree with you, I do think that the biggest problem with the science of global warming is that there is to much political and financial interest in it, and that the lobbists, politicians and corporations are the ones spreading the message the loudest. The fact though is that when you ignore the crud that the media spews out on both sides of the alarmist spectrum...the science IS already there, I believe at the level you desire to accept it.Originally Posted by WSR88D
The IPCC report combined the research 2500 leading multidiciplinary scientists from around the world to say that with greater than 90% certainty that man is affecting the climate. It's not 'Washington Banter', it's peer reviewed science. The author list begins on page 15 of this link, and continues to page 28...have a look it's pretty impressive:
Of course the climate goes through cycles, no scientist would refute that, but the full report states that back modeling the entire climate record, the only variable that accounts for recent trends are greenhouse gasses. And the report highlights ALOT of other variables...
You mention that you are skeptical because of the profit to be made off of adaptation. I look at it from the other angle...the profit to be lost. If society demands change, it would necessitate the immediate disruption to the world's leading economic sector, aka, the people who currently have the money and the power. I imagine that if I were faced with a threat to my livelyhood, my place at the top, I would do everything in my power to stop what is at the root of it...in this case, merely clouding the issue is worth TRILLIONS...
Scientists, I think have done a poor job getting their message out. The media likes to show fair and balanced reporting of political issues, and it percieves climate science in that light. Lobbyiests, pundits, radio personalities, politicians, oil companies, alarmists and hippies have lead the discussions in this county, and their oft outrageous claims grab headlines more than the steady, widely held, moderate scientific view...
Lastly, the word theory isn't one to be tossed around lightly in the scientific community...as cell theory and theory of relativity are also prominantly held theories, the term holds more clout in real science than the literal word may suggest.
Last edited by JimS; 08-22-2007 at 10:17 PM.
Thanks Jim, for lucidly posting what I have been thinking for a long time. I would think that it should be pointed out that the IPCC report that you reference was unanimously approved by the 13 pages of authors. True, some authors wanted some more explicit statments published, but the final document was approved by all.
As a non-scientist, I believe we should eschew the sensational. That point has already been made here. I also believe that a cautionary principle should be applied. If the scientific evidence demonstrates even a tiny chance that man-made greenhouse emissions will plague us with droughts or worse, render this planet uninhabitable, we have an obligation to cut down on fossil fuel consumption. George F. Will would complain over the "social wealth" lost to government regulations, but we have to recognize that there might be no social wealth--nor any society at all--if carbon emissions go unchecked for the next century.
The Observatory does not take political positions or advocate specific policies, so everyone is speaking their own opinion here, including me.
Jim great post. I was thinking how I wanted to respond. You are very civil and respectful.
I would like to add a comment about the media. They have a responsibility to be unbiased and to present both sides of an issue. So when the scientific communtiy presents data and predicitons the media feels obligated to present the opposing view point. However, the opposing view point is based on a well orchestrated well funded campaign to confuse the issue. See the Newsweek cover story. I think the media is to blame in part because they did not qualify thier sources ie establishing a conflict of interest, investigating the facts and statements etc. The public in this country is left with the illusion that there is doubt and uncertainty surrounding the issue of AGW.
Also a note on the IPCC, there are some oppinions by scientist of the Goddard Institute (the article was in either Science or Nature) that the IPCC report did not go far enough and that many of the predicitions are far worse)