The big climate-change myth

[Doug1029]

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

Anybody who wants to double-check the work can do so. That's what these arguments between scientists are: somebody checked the work and didn't come to the same conclusion. One does not have to be a scientist to check; one only needs to know what one is doing.

Doug

[Doug1029]

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

I don't ask you to trust my work. But somebody out there is going to check it, I have no doubt. I am using chronologies developed by other scientists. When I find something in one of them, the original author's reaction is usually: "Gee. I didn't know that." And his next step is to review my work to see if it's true. As I don't want to get raked over the coals by REAL experts, I'm pretty careful to make sure it's accurate. One doesn't want to look like a fool in front of his colleagues.

One other thought: my chronologies are taken in the same general neighborhood as other chronologies. They'd better show some similarities: like the winter of 1886. Or the droughts in 1862, 1881, 1894 and 1896. Or the short-term June droughts in 1912 and 1952. If they don't show those things, then something needs explaining. And that's an opportunity for another research project.

You mentioned outliers and short-term trends. Outliers are a statistical problem. In my work, they usually point to a mistake. If the mistake can be found and fixed, then the outlier usually disappears. If the mistake cannot be found, then the outlier must be left in the dataset. That has the result of weakening the conclusion. If the conclusion is strong enough to survive, then it gets written up for publication. If not, that's usually the end of the study.

The problem with short-term trends is that they are short term. Global warming won't destroy the planet in the next twenty years, so what the trend is at the moment doesn't really matter that much. But even small annual increments can add up to huge changes when taken over centuries.

But where we stand at the moment, even small changes can have serious consequences. Somewhere I read that over its lifetime, each coal-fired power plant will result in four extinctions. Since the 1950s, global temps have risen about 0.4 degrees. Doesn't sound like much, but thanks to that tiny amount, Lake Erie no longer freezes over in the winter and over half of the Arctic ice cap has melted off. In turn, we are seeing more-intense weather. The growing season in Arkansas is two weeks longer than it was sixty years ago. The little things count.

A five-year decline in temps only means that the environmental damage will happen five years later. So a short-term downward trend is not an excuse to do nothing.

Doug

Edited September 22, 2013 by Doug1029

[+DieChecker]

Anybody who wants to double-check the work can do so. That's what these arguments between scientists are: somebody checked the work and didn't come to the same conclusion. One does not have to be a scientist to check; one only needs to know what one is doing.

Doug

Aren't you the guy that keeps telling people that someone who is not an expert does not need to be believed? You're an Environmental Scientist, right? So which is it? Do we trust geologists that run the data and come up with something slightly different, or do we only trust those trained in environmental science?

Or, does that directly depend on the results of said scientists??

You mentioned outliers and short-term trends. Outliers are a statistical problem. In my work, they usually point to a mistake. If the mistake can be found and fixed, then the outlier usually disappears. If the mistake cannot be found, then the outlier must be left in the dataset. That has the result of weakening the conclusion. If the conclusion is strong enough to survive, then it gets written up for publication. If not, that's usually the end of the study.

Thank you for that excellent answer.

The problem with short-term trends is that they are short term. Global warming won't destroy the planet in the next twenty years, so what the trend is at the moment doesn't really matter that much. But even small annual increments can add up to huge changes when taken over centuries.

But, we have people online here in the forums and all over the world in the Media saying X Hurricanes from 2000 to 2008 means the end of the world.

And many proponents will fight Tooth and Nail to defend those articles and posts. So, why then do scientists let the Media put out crap? Or is the Media off on their own causing trouble? Many proponents that I talk to regularly in the Real World use these Media articles as their ONLY source of data.

But where we stand at the moment, even small changes can have serious consequences. Somewhere I read that over its lifetime, each coal-fired power plant will result in four extinctions. Since the 1950s, global temps have risen about 0.4 degrees. Doesn't sound like much, but thanks to that tiny amount, Lake Erie no longer freezes over in the winter and over half of the Arctic ice cap has melted off. In turn, we are seeing more-intense weather. The growing season in Arkansas is two weeks longer than it was sixty years ago. The little things count.

A five-year decline in temps only means that the environmental damage will happen five years later. So a short-term downward trend is not an excuse to do nothing.

Doug

Yeah, yeah. I'm not denying any of that. Those are Facts. Observable by anyone. I'm only conserned with those who are unable to change, regardless of the Facts. Those who take Global Warming into their teeth and fight ferociously in hatred and ignorance. I think environmental scientists should be conserned with those folks too.

Would you trust someone who "shouts" you down? Or call you names? Or who will not discuss strange data unless to use the words "ignorant" or "denier"?

Edited September 23, 2013 by DieChecker

[Frank Merton]

Every scientific journal I read (pretty much all the famous ones), and all the respected scientific web sites, say global warming caused by human activity is real and a serious danger. The only places I see questions raised or counter-arguments offered are on political sites. That tells me something.

I don't have the competence to judge this on my own, so I don't try, and I think some of the people hereabouts could use a little similar humility.

[MonkeyLove]

It is obvious that there is no climate change myth as the climate has been changing for thousands of years. The problem is that there's no CO2 ppm increase myth, which means we have to figure out the effects of that on other positive feedback loops, which in turn may affect temp. anomaly. For more details, see the NAS final report on the matter, if not BEST, which was ironically supported by skeptics.

[Von Bismarck]

according to who?

Hoyt uses a multi proxy composite which uses different solar attributes. it may not be an accurate reconstruction of TSI, but it would seem to be a fair representation of solar activity. if we limit discussion to TSI then you might have a point, but my current understanding is that there is more to solar influence that just the TSI and Hoyt combines other solar effects in their reconstruction.

fig 10 is the Hoyt "solar" reconstruction which correlates remarkbly with the arctic temperature as pointed out by the Soon et al graph:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf

What do you mean?

TSI or total solar irradiance is the amount of solar energy that's hits Earths atmosphere. Meaning that its TSI which can change the earth energy budget.

Hoyts figure 10 is a TSI reconstruction.

[Von Bismarck]

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying don't trust climate scientists because they can, as the church did in old days, hide what their data really shows? If that's the case then you couldn't be more wrong.

A lot of the younger climate scientist would do anything to find data which showed GW or AGW wasn't happening. This is really what science is about, keep on testing a theory and see if it holds. I for one would be jumping up and down in happiness if I found data which showed GW wasn't man made. I;m pretty sure I would be a noble prize winner if I can across data which showed the AGW Theory is not correct.

There is a new generation within climate science and trust me they would do anything they could show the "old-school" climate scientist they got it wrong. However data shows it will be unlikely.

[Von Bismarck]

True enough. But, when proponents only use the words, "Trust Me...", over and over again, I tend to want to Not trust them. When outliers and strange readings, or short term trends want to be discussed, and are Shouted Down as Heretical. That also tends to kill discussion and cause Skepticism.

Let's discuss short term trends then.

[Von Bismarck]

But, we have people online here in the forums and all over the world in the Media saying X Hurricanes from 2000 to 2008 means the end of the world.

And many proponents will fight Tooth and Nail to defend those articles and posts. So, why then do scientists let the Media put out crap? Or is the Media off on their own causing trouble? Many proponents that I talk to regularly in the Real World use these Media articles as their ONLY source of data.

The Media is full of **** when it comes to reporting Climate Science.

Half of the people reporting on climate science doesn't know what they are writing about and I daily see mistakes.

Take this article as an example. http://www.telegraph...scientists.html

Here they are basically saying: "Scientist you were wrong, see the sea ice is increasing!" Yes it increased from last year but what does it say if we use the data of the last 10 years. Then it would show a decline. And if you asked any scientist last year; What do you expect next years data to show a decline or an increase? The majority of scientist would say we would see an increase of next years data.

And regarding the climate scientists in the media which say extreme weather is on the increase. That cannot be backed by data. We need at least 30 years of data to be able to conclude if extreme weather is increasing due to global warming. So far data doesn't support these statements.

As I said in an earlier post to Little Fish. In theory we should see an increase in hurricanes, However observational data is showing no increasing trend. However what does the media say. They report what should be happening in Theory and when I hurricane does form they jump straight on the wagon and call out climate change as the reason. However most of them is just down to weather.

Don't believe what the Media, IPCC or any scientist is saying. Study/research it yourself and you will discover the truth.

Edited September 23, 2013 by BFB

[Guest]

The problem being that those who are collecting the data are those who are telling us what it means. The Church once told everyone the Earth was the center of the universe and that the world was Flat, and the scientists of the time were forced to agree and say that the evidence supported these conclusions.

We are told by climate scientists that They are the only True holders of the Knowledge and Truth. When it is they who hold all the databases of data. Thus, they can make their own Truth, just as the Church once did.

Is Climate Change happening? Sure it is. But is every storm, or hot day, or lack thereof a sign it is an avalanch about to sweep us all away? I'm not convinced it is.

You are straying firmly back into CT here. They are interpreting the data as it exists and there is remarkable uniformity in the accepted interpretation of that data. There are numerous threads of confirmatory evidence which support the overall conclusion.

Please step out of the CT mindset on this one.

As to your last comment, let me just point out that I have explained at great length that no individual event can be used to support climate change - none. It is by careful collection, classification and analysis of every major event which allows scientists to state empirically whether there is a statistically meaningful trend within the whole data. If you will accept a straw man argument don't be surprised when those who understand how the conclusions are drawn don't rise to the bait.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

The Media is full of **** when it comes to reporting Climate Science.

Half of the people reporting on climate science doesn't know what they are writing about and I daily see mistakes.

Take this article as an example. http://www.telegraph...scientists.html

Here they are basically saying: "Scientist you were wrong, see the sea ice is increasing!" Yes it increased from last year but what does it say if we use the data of the last 10 years. Then it would show a decline. And if you asked any scientist last year; What do you expect next years data to show a decline or an increase? The majority of scientist would say we would see an increase of next years data.

And regarding the climate scientists in the media which say extreme weather is on the increase. That cannot be backed by data. We need at least 30 years of data to be able to conclude if extreme weather is increasing due to global warming. So far data doesn't support these statements.

As I said in an earlier post to Little Fish. In theory we should see an increase in hurricanes, However observational data is showing no increasing trend. However what does the media say. They report what should be happening in Theory and when I hurricane does form they jump straight on the wagon and call out climate change as the reason. However most of them is just down to weather.

Don't believe what the Media, IPCC or any scientist is saying. Study/research it yourself and you will discover the truth.

I think you will find that the IPCC disagrees with you on that statement, your going to have to wait to read it and see in what specific way they do.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Diechecker - i think you will find that the degree of ignorance of the issues shown in many of the contributors to these global warming threads is so enormous that it is impossible to use any other term than ignorant to describe them.

Thats a harsh but true fact, and when you see the same pieces of ignorance repeated over and over without ever referencing comments maybe even a few pages back - you will quite understand why it is enough to make a persons blood boil.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Aren't you the guy that keeps telling people that someone who is not an expert does not need to be believed? You're an Environmental Scientist, right? So which is it? Do we trust geologists that run the data and come up with something slightly different, or do we only trust those trained in environmental science?

You trust yourself. Do the reading; answer the questions that the reading turns up; learn how conclusions are arrived at. Learn to think critically. Personally, I trust geologists because their training is similar to other natural sciences. The only problem is the geologists take the L-L-L-O-O-O-N-N-N-G-G-G view. They reason that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and nothing has destroyed it yet and as there is no known space rock or other hazard anywhere to be seen, there's nothing to worry about. They're right, of course. The earth was here long before we were and will still be here long after we're gone. But that isn't very comforting when we can exterminate most living things (including ourselves) within the next few centuries.

But, we have people online here in the forums and all over the world in the Media saying X Hurricanes from 2000 to 2008 means the end of the world.

Let's say that global warming theory forecasts twelve hurricanes this year, but we only got eight. Was the third hurricane of the season one of the twelve, or one of the eight? No way to tell.

The only thing that greater numbers and intensities of hurricanes means is that there is a greater risk of them hitting major cities and causing more damage. There will be more Sandys and Katrinas. More people will die; more property will be destroyed. Insurance rates will go up.

There are two consequences of warming that could seriously damage life on earth, or even result in its extinction. The first is ecosystem collapse. Warming (as well as other human activities) is resulting in extinctions. Each species functions in the ecosystem like a part in a complex machine, like a rivet in an airplane. The system is extremely redundant; if one component fails, there is usually another around to replace it. But you can't keep breaking parts of the machine forever. Sooner or later you knock out the last rivet and the airplane crashes. That's what we're doing with our life-support system - trying to find out how much damage we can do before it quits working. And warming is a contributing factor.

The other possible end-time warming-related scenario is the "methane gun." Over thousands, maybe millions, of years methane deposits have accumulated in the ocean deeps so that they now average about 700 feet thick in most places. The methane is kept in solid form by low temperatures and high pressures. As the planet warms, the oceans warm, melting some of that methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. It bubbles to the surface and mixes with the air, further accelerating warming. This, in turn, warms the water, melting more methane. A shift in ocean circulation could subject huge areas of the ocean deeps to warmer water and "fire" the gun, resulting in runaway warming that has the potential to raise the planet's mean temperature close to the boiling point.

Both scenarios assume that events will happen rapidly, but that is not necessarily so. If the ecosystem fails slowly, we may do just enough damage to kill off PART of our population. That, in turn, reduces human impact and will (hopefully) damp down or stop the warming. So warming may be self-limiting - if there is a feedback loop that holds our numbers in check, that is.

The short-term concern is that the feedback loop might involve disease or crop failures (famine) or social breakdown. None of those are pleasant to contemplate. It is my hope that these consequences can be averted by intelligent action.

Other than those two possibilities, warming is just an inconvenience. Our economies are highly invested in the status quo. When that changes, the economies must change too. People who complain that conversion will be expensive aren't calculating the cost of not converting. Moving the NYSE to higher ground is only a tiny part of the cost of non-conversion.

Warming is about what will happen in the future, true. But it is also about what is happening right now and about what has already happened. That's where I come in. Tree ring work is about what has happened in the past. How do you know if the world is getting warmer when you don't know how warm it was before? My job is to answer that question.

And many proponents will fight Tooth and Nail to defend those articles and posts. So, why then do scientists let the Media put out crap? Or is the Media off on their own causing trouble? Many proponents that I talk to regularly in the Real World use these Media articles as their ONLY source of data.

It's a free country. One is free to express his opinion and make a fool of himself if he wishes. Scientists have no more ability to control the irresponsible actions of the media than you do. Or, for that matter, than the government does.

Yeah, yeah. I'm not denying any of that. Those are Facts. Observable by anyone. I'm only conserned with those who are unable to change, regardless of the Facts. Those who take Global Warming into their teeth and fight ferociously in hatred and ignorance. I think environmental scientists should be conserned with those folks too.

Scientists are trying to get the word out and there are frequent articles in "Science" and other publications as to how that can be done. Education is probably the best answer. STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. People trained in those areas are in short supply. And people knowledgeable in any of the sciences will be better-able to understand research than those who are not so trained.

And science jobs can be fascinating beyond anything most people imagine. I get paid to go down to Idabel, wade into a millpond and hitch chokers around submerged logs so a skidder can pull them out. I get paid to hike into the mountains and around the woods to collect data and/or samples. I once hiked into Brainard Lake near Ward, Colorado (Ward is about 20 miles up Lefthand Canyon from CO-36 where the recent floods took out the bridge over Lefthand Creek.). The purpose of the trip was to collect birch seed which ripens in the fall. It was a gorgeous fall day with green pines, yellow aspens and sky of Colorado blue. On the way up I met a woman from my church who asked if I was taking the day off to enjoy the woods. I told her I was working - it's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. I have a project starting pretty soon where I'll be taking a canoe to work every morning - it's the fastest route into an old-growth oak stand where I'm collecting cores.

Someday, somebody may well clone a mammoth, put a saddle on him and ride into the sunset. But if you don't have training in the sciences, it won't be you. You'll have to watch on TV while asking customers if they'd like fries with that (That's a generic "you;" I don't mean it personally.).

We don't need to be concerned with everybody or everything. We need change only enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, or at least, keep them from rising further. Yes, there are people who will fight tooth and nail against even the idea of warming, just as there are still a few holdouts for tobacco. For decades the tobacco lobby was able to fend off regulation, just as the coal-and-oil people are doing today. In the end, tobacco lost. Eventually, so will coal and oil.

Would you trust someone who "shouts" you down? Or call you names? Or who will not discuss strange data unless to use the words "ignorant" or "denier"?

I try not to call anybody ignorant, but there are some posters here who are simply too lazy to do their homework and read anything at all on the subject, much less the hundreds of research articles that come out every month. That is a problem because subscriptions to professional journals are expensive. I suspect that in most cases, the popular media are simply too cheap to pay for subscriptions. They get their information by misquoting each other. It isn't just that people don't know; it's that some of them actively avoid educating themselves. There is no other word for them than "ignorant."

I have asked before on UM what deniers would prefer to be called. Just tell me the word and I'll use it. But nobody seems to have put any thought into the question. So what word would you prefer? I'm not being facetious here. I really don't have a better word.

Doug

Edited September 23, 2013 by Doug1029

[+DieChecker]

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying don't trust climate scientists because they can, as the church did in old days, hide what their data really shows? If that's the case then you couldn't be more wrong.

A lot of the younger climate scientist would do anything to find data which showed GW or AGW wasn't happening. This is really what science is about, keep on testing a theory and see if it holds. I for one would be jumping up and down in happiness if I found data which showed GW wasn't man made. I;m pretty sure I would be a noble prize winner if I can across data which showed the AGW Theory is not correct.

There is a new generation within climate science and trust me they would do anything they could show the "old-school" climate scientist they got it wrong. However data shows it will be unlikely.

So, the arguement is that because there are so many young, unfettered climate scientists and more coming up in universities that any "Secret Cabal" that is covering up some facts and promoting others is impossible?

But, who collects this data? Who controls the data? Is it out there for everyone to see? Or is it being massaged behind the scenes? Wasn't that the whole thing with Climategate? Sure... Investigation showed that nothing actually happened with the manipulation of the climate data, but the very fact that there had to be hearings and investigations would seem to indicate such could have been done.

[+DieChecker]

The Media is full of **** when it comes to reporting Climate Science.

Half of the people reporting on climate science doesn't know what they are writing about and I daily see mistakes.

That is one of my points that not just the Anti-GW crowd, but the Pro-GW crowd both use these articles with bad data interpretation to support their stands. It is hard sometimes to believe anything that anyone is saying. The Pro-GW people say that 99% of polar bears are dead and other stupid stuff, and they are totally convinced that they are right, and pointing out articles that say they are wrong is met with "Those people are GW deniers, and are wrong.".

My point I guess is that fanatics are dangerous and can spread misinformation even when their motives are pure. And the Media seems to want more Fanatics and not so much the Scientists.

And regarding the climate scientists in the media which say extreme weather is on the increase. That cannot be backed by data. We need at least 30 years of data to be able to conclude if extreme weather is increasing due to global warming. So far data doesn't support these statements.

As I said in an earlier post to Little Fish. In theory we should see an increase in hurricanes, However observational data is showing no increasing trend. However what does the media say. They report what should be happening in Theory and when I hurricane does form they jump straight on the wagon and call out climate change as the reason. However most of them is just down to weather.

Don't believe what the Media, IPCC or any scientist is saying. Study/research it yourself and you will discover the truth.

Edited September 24, 2013 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

As to your last comment, let me just point out that I have explained at great length that no individual event can be used to support climate change - none. It is by careful collection, classification and analysis of every major event which allows scientists to state empirically whether there is a statistically meaningful trend within the whole data. If you will accept a straw man argument don't be surprised when those who understand how the conclusions are drawn don't rise to the bait.

Ahh, but you are not the only spokesmen for Global Warming/Climate Change. The world, the internet, and the workplace, is full of self promoted GW experts who are only half informed, but ready to fight to the death for their favorite theory.

[+DieChecker]

Thanks for the time you obviously put into this....

You trust yourself. Do the reading; answer the questions that the reading turns up; learn how conclusions are arrived at. Learn to think critically. Personally, I trust geologists because their training is similar to other natural sciences. The only problem is the geologists take the L-L-L-O-O-O-N-N-N-G-G-G view. They reason that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and nothing has destroyed it yet and as there is no known space rock or other hazard anywhere to be seen, there's nothing to worry about. They're right, of course. The earth was here long before we were and will still be here long after we're gone. But that isn't very comforting when we can exterminate most living things (including ourselves) within the next few centuries.

I think that I (mostly) think critically. I only just need to be convinced. With the main source of data to the world being filtered through Media articles, it is very hard to know what is real and what is bias.

Let's say that global warming theory forecasts twelve hurricanes this year, but we only got eight. Was the third hurricane of the season one of the twelve, or one of the eight? No way to tell.

The only thing that greater numbers and intensities of hurricanes means is that there is a greater risk of them hitting major cities and causing more damage. There will be more Sandys and Katrinas. More people will die; more property will be destroyed. Insurance rates will go up.

I agree that hurricanes appear to be increasing in intensity. My problem is what people who use averages over fairly short terms, with the years being chosen being picked to reflect the worst possible condition, when if a different 10 year set of data is used, then the numbers are not nearly so bad.

There are two consequences of warming that could seriously damage life on earth, or even result in its extinction. The first is ecosystem collapse. Warming (as well as other human activities) is resulting in extinctions. Each species functions in the ecosystem like a part in a complex machine, like a rivet in an airplane. The system is extremely redundant; if one component fails, there is usually another around to replace it. But you can't keep breaking parts of the machine forever. Sooner or later you knock out the last rivet and the airplane crashes. That's what we're doing with our life-support system - trying to find out how much damage we can do before it quits working. And warming is a contributing factor.

The other possible end-time warming-related scenario is the "methane gun." Over thousands, maybe millions, of years methane deposits have accumulated in the ocean deeps so that they now average about 700 feet thick in most places. The methane is kept in solid form by low temperatures and high pressures. As the planet warms, the oceans warm, melting some of that methane. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. It bubbles to the surface and mixes with the air, further accelerating warming. This, in turn, warms the water, melting more methane. A shift in ocean circulation could subject huge areas of the ocean deeps to warmer water and "fire" the gun, resulting in runaway warming that has the potential to raise the planet's mean temperature close to the boiling point.

Both scenarios assume that events will happen rapidly, but that is not necessarily so. If the ecosystem fails slowly, we may do just enough damage to kill off PART of our population. That, in turn, reduces human impact and will (hopefully) damp down or stop the warming. So warming may be self-limiting - if there is a feedback loop that holds our numbers in check, that is.

I agree with that. I also believe we (humans) could engineer much of the problem away, but only if we act before it is too late. It is when is "Too late" that is still up for debate. I've read articles that it is already past the "too late" point.

The short-term concern is that the feedback loop might involve disease or crop failures (famine) or social breakdown. None of those are pleasant to contemplate. It is my hope that these consequences can be averted by intelligent action.

Unfortunately engineers and scientists do not run the world. The world is run by journalists, lawyers and policians. Who's motivations are not always in line with the needs of the environment.

It's a free country. One is free to express his opinion and make a fool of himself if he wishes. Scientists have no more ability to control the irresponsible actions of the media than you do. Or, for that matter, than the government does.

Scientists are trying to get the word out and there are frequent articles in "Science" and other publications as to how that can be done. Education is probably the best answer. STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. People trained in those areas are in short supply. And people knowledgeable in any of the sciences will be better-able to understand research than those who are not so trained.

I've read that less then 50% of the demand in the US for engineers and scientiists is being filled by US Colleges and Universities. That the American people don't value math and science as much anymore, and instead prefer humanities related degrees, says to me that the US is in decline on the science and technology front. We value money over knowledge these days. And too many people think math and science are too hard at the University level, probably because they were not prepared for it in high school. That's my opinion anyway.

The US needs to re-invest into science and math in all public education in my opinion. What is taught in public schools today about Global Warming is not much different that a random article might have in it.

And science jobs can be fascinating beyond anything most people imagine. I get paid to go down to Idabel, wade into a millpond and hitch chokers around submerged logs so a skidder can pull them out. I get paid to hike into the mountains and around the woods to collect data and/or samples. I once hiked into Brainard Lake near Ward, Colorado (Ward is about 20 miles up Lefthand Canyon from CO-36 where the recent floods took out the bridge over Lefthand Creek.). The purpose of the trip was to collect birch seed which ripens in the fall. It was a gorgeous fall day with green pines, yellow aspens and sky of Colorado blue. On the way up I met a woman from my church who asked if I was taking the day off to enjoy the woods. I told her I was working - it's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. I have a project starting pretty soon where I'll be taking a canoe to work every morning - it's the fastest route into an old-growth oak stand where I'm collecting cores.

That sounds a very cool career.

Someday, somebody may well clone a mammoth, put a saddle on him and ride into the sunset. But if you don't have training in the sciences, it won't be you. You'll have to watch on TV while asking customers if they'd like fries with that (That's a generic "you;" I don't mean it personally.).

We don't need to be concerned with everybody or everything. We need change only enough to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, or at least, keep them from rising further. Yes, there are people who will fight tooth and nail against even the idea of warming, just as there are still a few holdouts for tobacco. For decades the tobacco lobby was able to fend off regulation, just as the coal-and-oil people are doing today. In the end, tobacco lost. Eventually, so will coal and oil.

I try not to call anybody ignorant, but there are some posters here who are simply too lazy to do their homework and read anything at all on the subject, much less the hundreds of research articles that come out every month. That is a problem because subscriptions to professional journals are expensive. I suspect that in most cases, the popular media are simply too cheap to pay for subscriptions. They get their information by misquoting each other. It isn't just that people don't know; it's that some of them actively avoid educating themselves. There is no other word for them than "ignorant."

I have asked before on UM what deniers would prefer to be called. Just tell me the word and I'll use it. But nobody seems to have put any thought into the question. So what word would you prefer? I'm not being facetious here. I really don't have a better word.

Doug

I think deniers is fine, just that it should not be thrown into every discussion whenever a Pro-GW poster finds something too hard to respond too. They should simply respond that they don't know, rather then resorting to name calling to try to end a discussion.

Again, I thank you for the thoughtfull post.

[Beany]

Thanks for the time you obviously put into this....

I think that I (mostly) think critically. I only just need to be convinced. With the main source of data to the world being filtered through Media articles, it is very hard to know what is real and what is bias.

I agree that hurricanes appear to be increasing in intensity. My problem is what people who use averages over fairly short terms, with the years being chosen being picked to reflect the worst possible condition, when if a different 10 year set of data is used, then the numbers are not nearly so bad.

I agree with that. I also believe we (humans) could engineer much of the problem away, but only if we act before it is too late. It is when is "Too late" that is still up for debate. I've read articles that it is already past the "too late" point.

Unfortunately engineers and scientists do not run the world. The world is run by journalists, lawyers and policians. Who's motivations are not always in line with the needs of the environment.

I've read that less then 50% of the demand in the US for engineers and scientiists is being filled by US Colleges and Universities. That the American people don't value math and science as much anymore, and instead prefer humanities related degrees, says to me that the US is in decline on the science and technology front. We value money over knowledge these days. And too many people think math and science are too hard at the University level, probably because they were not prepared for it in high school. That's my opinion anyway.

The US needs to re-invest into science and math in all public education in my opinion. What is taught in public schools today about Global Warming is not much different that a random article might have in it.

That sounds a very cool career.

I think deniers is fine, just that it should not be thrown into every discussion whenever a Pro-GW poster finds something too hard to respond too. They should simply respond that they don't know, rather then resorting to name calling to try to end a discussion.

Again, I thank you for the thoughtfull post.

Here in California there's a big educational push for what's called STEM: Science, technology, engineering & math. But tuition rates keep going up, making higher education less & less affordable for the average family. The science behind global warming is quite complicated, and as a lay person it's hard to know which individuals & institutions don't already have an agenda they're pushing. I certainly don't have the training or education to determine which pieces of information are accurate, which ones are biased, or totally fabricated, which important pieces of information are being left out. The general consensus is we've screwed up our environment so badly that it may not recover.

[Frank Merton]

Educational costs are like medical costs: so long as someone else pays most of the bill there is no market pressure to keep costs down. When is the last time you saw a university advertising its lower costs?

[Little Fish]

it is dangerous using a graph like Maue's in this case. Because if I remember right Maue only counted 3 days and above storms into this data, please correct me if i'm wrong. When doing his work he aimed to show there isn't an increase in extreme wind events.

do you have better data?

major hurricanes trend seems flat.

[Von Bismarck]

do you have better data?

major hurricanes trend seems flat.

First off, the quoted part was me addressing using Maue's graph on hurricanes in the northern hemisphere. At that point we were talking about an increase of hurricanes in the Artic Region/the North Atlantic. However I did say that observational data in these regions do not support our theories, yet.

To address this graph I would like to say I do very much applaud Maue's data, I like his work and the techniques he uses to gather his data.

But actually his data does show an increase in major hurricanes over the last 30 years, but what if we take out pre-1990 data? (will explain below)

This "is extreme hurricanes increasing" debate is quite a big debate among atmospheric scientists. We have some studies which shows a significant increase such as this study http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Webster_tropical_cyclone.pdf "80% increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 30 years" which is a paper the media and IPCC uses to justify that Global Warming does increase hurricane intensity and frequency. However I must show my disappointment in both the IPCC and the media for using this report.

Its uses satellite data. However there is one massive problem with this.

The Webster studies data set begins in 1970. But it wasn't until 1972 that the Dvorak Technique was devolved (this technique is how satellites can measure wind intensity) So can we use the 2 years of this data set to conclude if hurricane intensity increased? the answer is NO.

Now it wasn't until 1984 that the Dvorak technique was updated so satellites could use infrared to measure wind intensity at night as well. So the data from 72-86 is only daytime data where visible imagery was the only way. Also in the 70's and in the 80's satellite imagery wasn't as good as today(less resolution) meaning that a lot of hurricanes in category 4 and 5 could be missing in this data set(pre-1990).

But Webster et al. knew this and even said it them self. "There have been substantial changes in the manner in which the Dvorak technique has been applied, these changes may lead a trend toward more intense cyclones"

Therefore in all I agree with you Little Fish. Its hard to conclude at this given point we have seen an increase in wind intensity. I believe it will come, but show far there;s really no hard evidence.

[Frank Merton]

The effect of increased carbon dioxide can be demonstrated in a laboratory. I thought the effect of global warming on severe storm was still mostly just models.

[Von Bismarck]

Replying to this post is quite tricky, ill have to be careful on how I answer it.

So, the arguement is that because there are so many young, unfettered climate scientists and more coming up in universities that any "Secret Cabal" that is covering up some facts and promoting others is impossible?

But, who collects this data? Who controls the data? Is it out there for everyone to see? Or is it being massaged behind the scenes? Wasn't that the whole thing with Climategate? Sure... Investigation showed that nothing actually happened with the manipulation of the climate data, but the very fact that there had to be hearings and investigations would seem to indicate such could have been done.

Most data is available to everyone. Sure you might have to spend some money getting it but to be fair collecting data isn't cheap, in some cases.

To answer your questions shortly, its the people funding you which "owns" the data. Yes data can be cooked and sometimes are.

[Von Bismarck]

That is one of my points that not just the Anti-GW crowd, but the Pro-GW crowd both use these articles with bad data interpretation to support their stands. It is hard sometimes to believe anything that anyone is saying. The Pro-GW people say that 99% of polar bears are dead and other stupid stuff, and they are totally convinced that they are right, and pointing out articles that say they are wrong is met with "Those people are GW deniers, and are wrong.".

My point I guess is that fanatics are dangerous and can spread misinformation even when their motives are pure. And the Media seems to want more Fanatics and not so much the Scientists.

Completely agree.

Don't get my started on the whole polar bear thing. Polar Bears are not dying out because of global warming.

Actually in recent years there have been an increase in polar bears.

Polar bears don't need ice to survive. We had polar bears on this planet, when we had an ice free arctic in the past.

Your point is one I have been trying to advocate so many times.

There are to much politics in climate science, way to much.

[Von Bismarck]

The effect of increased carbon dioxide can be demonstrated in a laboratory. I thought the effect of global warming on severe storm was still mostly just models.

Its just theories and models. At the moment we are trying to find out if observational data support our theories.

Edited September 24, 2013 by BFB