Right Wing University says Global Warming a Natural Cycle

[Maggie]

If politics is your primary reason to comment on climate change, say whatever you like. If you want to get closer to the truth, look at the consesus view of appropriate scientists.

Politics aside (if that is even possible – it seems to me neither side is completely immune from this temptation), count me in as skeptical, not in small part due to the fact that many global cooling/global warming/climate change “advocates” seem to have a near religious devotion this subject (which strikes me as unscientific) and have consistently made fallacious, to put it diplomatically, arguments in support of their position(s) – perhaps, in an effort to draw attention to their cause.

But I am curious - a two part question: Who in your judgment are “appropriate scientists” and what would disqualify someone from being an “appropriate scientist”?

[SpanglerFan316]

If politics is your primary reason to comment on climate change, say whatever you like. If you want to get closer to the truth, look at the consesus view of appropriate scientists.

Politics aside (if that is even possible – it seems to me neither side is completely immune from this temptation), count me in as skeptical, not in small part due to the fact that many global cooling/global warming/climate change “advocates” seem to have a near religious devotion this subject (which strikes me as unscientific) and have consistently made fallacious, to put it diplomatically, arguments in support of their position(s) – perhaps, in an effort to draw attention to their cause.

But I am curious - a two part question: Who in your judgment are “appropriate scientists” and what would disqualify someone from being an “appropriate scientist”?

A good question. Science depends on unbiased individuals who will let facts and observations, rather than dogma, dictate their conclusions. There is always dispute in science and this is one of its strengths. The majority is not always correct.

Consider the case of Alfred Wegener and "Continental drift." In the end, his idea was accepted as being correct. However he could not propose an adequate mechanism for "continental drift." After the theory of plate tectonics was developed and accepted, "continental drift" was seen to occur. With suitable measurements, we can measure the rate at which the distances between continents is changing. Most geologists between 1912 and 1960 dismissed Wegener's idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Were the geologists who refused to accept "continental drift" wrong? Even though I'm a fan of Wegener and I love to "prove the experts wrong," I think geologists reached the right conclusion in view of the evidence available to them. In science, it's not enough to have a good idea; you have to back it up.

On the other hand, a really bright geologist might have accepted Wegener's claim and looked for a mechanism which allowed continents to move relative to one another. Such a geologist might have proposed "plate tectonics" based on thermodynamics of the interior of the earth. Even though the evidence for plate tectonics would not become available until World War 2 (i.e. mapping the ocean floor to increase the probability of finding German subs), this would offer a mechanism which would allow for the motion of continents.

A similar example is Lord Kelvin's estimate for the age of the earth based on thermodynamics and Newton's Law of Cooling (i.e. simple differential equations). His estimate of about 10-100 million years was far too large for many religious people and far too short for geologists. In fact, a smart scientist might have asked if some additional mechanism exists and, with a lot of luck, have proposed a theory of radioactive decay (and resultant heat generation.)

Getting back to an answer, you want to look at "real scientists" who apply the scientific method and are willing to throw out their theory if it doesn't correspond with the facts. Somebody like this http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/kelvin.asp has an agenda and would not be appropriate in my opinion. A focus on one element of a theory (e.g. Kelvin's calculation) to the exclusion of all other evidence (e.g. the ratio of lead to uranium http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_...raniumlead.htm) indicates that the ndividual in question, John Woodmorappe, is not an unbiased scientist. His last line, "The empirical evidence supports the view that the Earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years" in light of his failure to provide this "empirical evidence" means he is a "kook." :D

[SB Shock]

Getting back on-topic, climate is very complex and we will continue to be surprised by climate research. It is easy to find one or two unexpected examples and declare "global warming" fictitious; this would be foolish.

If you had read the article, you would have found that they did not find global warming "fictitious". Their hypothesis is it is more about a natural cycle and less about man. Anybody with any intelligence can look at the data and tell that the the earth is warming. But also if you honestly look at the data you clearly see that the earth warming cycle has went in phases. The warming of the earth has been much more pronounced in the past.

If politics is your primary reason to comment on climate change, say whatever you like. If you want to get closer to the truth, look at the consesus view of appropriate scientists.

The science has been overrun by politics. You have Al Gore the "expert" on global warming (he is a politician, not a scientist). That is the real problem. Politics is trying to beat or shout down anything or anybody that discents (and there are plenty) You also have politicians who "fund" to get an answer they want.

I have two questions for you

1. Why would you believe any global warming model that is prediciting the future weather of this planet in decades when present models can't predict accurately beyond a few days and can only hint at long term weather patterns changes (<30 days)?

2. What exactly is wrong with Global Warming? There is alot of land and resources that are locked or limited due to present climate. Why is the status quo best?

[SpanglerFan316]

I usually avoid "off-topic" on SN because it is so political. If you look at the Illinois State board's "off-topic" forum, you see a much more reasonable discussion with sports as the primary element.

As for your questions, they indicate a level of "dishonesty" which is unfortunate.

1. Why would you believe any global warming model that is prediciting the future weather of this planet in decades when present models can't predict accurately beyond a few days and can only hint at long term weather patterns changes (<30 days)?

If you are driving your car down the road, can you predict where the car will be in ten seconds? (Hopefully your answer is "Yes.")

Can you predict with accuracy the location of the piston in the first cylinder after 0.1 seconds? (No, I don't mean "in the engine.") Can you predict with high accuracy the pressure in the exhaust manifold at a particular point after 0.001 seconds? ETC.

The overall "heat budget" of the earth is a different matter than the "weather." There is no global warming model which attempts to predict "long term weather patterns." At times, simulations based on models are run; these are not "predictions" but rather "what sorts of weather (or weather patterns) might occur" if the model was approximately accurate. It is like criticizing your dishwasher because it performs very poorly as a microwave.

Some problems (e.g. weather prediction) are highly unstable. Even a "perfect model" will be unable to predit the weather for a long period of time (e.g. a month or two.) Other problems are more stable.

2. I don't recall saying "global warming is bad" (or good).

[Maggie]

If politics is your primary reason to comment on climate change, say whatever you like. If you want to get closer to the truth, look at the consesus view of appropriate scientists.

Politics aside (if that is even possible – it seems to me neither side is completely immune from this temptation), count me in as skeptical, not in small part due to the fact that many global cooling/global warming/climate change “advocates” seem to have a near religious devotion this subject (which strikes me as unscientific) and have consistently made fallacious, to put it diplomatically, arguments in support of their position(s) – perhaps, in an effort to draw attention to their cause.

But I am curious - a two part question: Who in your judgment are “appropriate scientists” and what would disqualify someone from being an “appropriate scientist”?

A good question. Science depends on unbiased individuals who will let facts and observations, rather than dogma, dictate their conclusions. There is always dispute in science and this is one of its strengths. The majority is not always correct.

Consider the case of Alfred Wegener and "Continental drift." In the end, his idea was accepted as being correct. However he could not propose an adequate mechanism for "continental drift." After the theory of plate tectonics was developed and accepted, "continental drift" was seen to occur. With suitable measurements, we can measure the rate at which the distances between continents is changing. Most geologists between 1912 and 1960 dismissed Wegener's idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Were the geologists who refused to accept "continental drift" wrong? Even though I'm a fan of Wegener and I love to "prove the experts wrong," I think geologists reached the right conclusion in view of the evidence available to them. In science, it's not enough to have a good idea; you have to back it up.

On the other hand, a really bright geologist might have accepted Wegener's claim and looked for a mechanism which allowed continents to move relative to one another. Such a geologist might have proposed "plate tectonics" based on thermodynamics of the interior of the earth. Even though the evidence for plate tectonics would not become available until World War 2 (i.e. mapping the ocean floor to increase the probability of finding German subs), this would offer a mechanism which would allow for the motion of continents.

A similar example is Lord Kelvin's estimate for the age of the earth based on thermodynamics and Newton's Law of Cooling (i.e. simple differential equations). His estimate of about 10-100 million years was far too large for many religious people and far too short for geologists. In fact, a smart scientist might have asked if some additional mechanism exists and, with a lot of luck, have proposed a theory of radioactive decay (and resultant heat generation.)

Getting back to an answer, you want to look at "real scientists" who apply the scientific method and are willing to throw out their theory if it doesn't correspond with the facts. Somebody like this http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/kelvin.asp has an agenda and would not be appropriate in my opinion. A focus on one element of a theory (e.g. Kelvin's calculation) to the exclusion of all other evidence (e.g. the ratio of lead to uranium http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_...raniumlead.htm) indicates that the ndividual in question, John Woodmorappe, is not an unbiased scientist. His last line, "The empirical evidence supports the view that the Earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years" in light of his failure to provide this "empirical evidence" means he is a "kook." :D

Thank you for your response. I agree with your basic statement about the scientific method and I also agree “dispute in science” is, or should be, one of its inherent strengths.

I think you hit on something fundamental and essential to science: Peer review. It seems to me that reasonable scientists can, and do, disagree over this issue. However, those scientists that are skeptical about it are often isolated, mocked, etc. I resent this type of behavior as I find it to be evidence of a combination of hubris, “group think” and generally counter productive. Furthermore, it is not the type of rhetoric that a normal individual would engage in if their own argument/hypothesis/conclusion could be reasonably defended.

If I were a scientist I would welcome peer review, criticism, etc. Not only would it further my own research (whether, in the end, it supported my original hypothesis or not) but I might actually learn something.

Therefore, without wading into the political weeds, I am resistant to public policy based upon global cooling/global warming/climate change theories.

Again, just curious: Where do you come down on this?

[SpanglerFan316]

Maggie: Objective facts like global CO2 levels can be determined over a very long period of time (!00,000 years+). Over the last several hundred years and especially over the last several decades, these levels have risen dramatically. I don't know any reasonable person who looks at that data and says "That's not due to human activity." Other gasses which might contribute to retaining heat in the atmosphere (by reducing its radiation into space) are also increasing but I am less familiar with this data or its sources.

Independent of the causes of the increase in the levels of "greenhouse gasses" is their effect on the "heat budget" of the atmosphere, ocean and land. The "thermal energy ("heat") problem" is a very stable, unlike weather. However it is not "precise" (i.e. the backward heat equation is extremely unstable). Determining the total amount of heat is stable (i.e. can be solved) but locating the heat sources (after the fact) is unstable (i.e. "impossible").

Now throw in the effect of clouds, solar radiation, the absorption of CO2 by the ocean (which can only go on for a finite amount of time), etc. and you should realize that this is a very difficult problem. At the end of the day, I believe global warming is occuring.

[RoyalShock]

Here's an interview with Ian Wishart, the author of a recent climate change book. He is a journalist from New Zealand who also worked as a political advisor. He's went from believer to neutral to skeptic. Having been a part of the political spin machine (as an advisor), his perspective is intriguing.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/interview-with-ian-wishart.html

[Maggie]

Maggie: Objective facts like global CO2 levels can be determined over a very long period of time (!00,000 years+). Over the last several hundred years and especially over the last several decades, these levels have risen dramatically. I don't know any reasonable person who looks at that data and says "That's not due to human activity." Other gasses which might contribute to retaining heat in the atmosphere (by reducing its radiation into space) are also increasing but I am less familiar with this data or its sources.

Independent of the causes of the increase in the levels of "greenhouse gasses" is their effect on the "heat budget" of the atmosphere, ocean and land. The "thermal energy ("heat") problem" is a very stable, unlike weather. However it is not "precise" (i.e. the backward heat equation is extremely unstable). Determining the total amount of heat is stable (i.e. can be solved) but locating the heat sources (after the fact) is unstable (i.e. "impossible").

Now throw in the effect of clouds, solar radiation, the absorption of CO2 by the ocean (which can only go on for a finite amount of time), etc. and you should realize that this is a very difficult problem. At the end of the day, I believe global warming is occuring.

I am sorry, my question was not clear and this is really for my own edification. I was really asking about your take regarding the general scientific research going on both for and against, including the various public reactions. I know it is a difficult problem and I am not arguing for or against the theory – so I am not directly questioning your belief in global warming. I suppose what I am really expressing is an overall frustration with global warming as presented for public consumption. Why are advocates, in general (and they been this way for 30+ years), so resistant to reasonable critics and questions?

You see -- I am no scientist, and don’t claim to be, but going back years it is my understanding that a foundational principle of science is falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false (if I get this wrong, it was been a while, please let me know). Many observations may look like they verify a hypothesis, but one significant failure could result in the hypothesis being shown to be false.

A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations is not “science”. The current global warming theory should be no exception to this principle. Can you name the conditions or findings that you would take as falsifying your stated belief that humans are causing catastrophic climate change?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many scientists (and general reporting on this issue) — whether because they are believers in global warming theory (and mans primary role in it) or because public fear of climate change has proven to be a funding bonanza for their area of research — seem to refuse to accept any counter evidence as disproving their theory or to admit that alternative hypotheses might explain better much of the climatic phenomena we have recently experienced. In fact, they aggressively resist such analysis.

I have read that we have had record low temps over the spring and summer (in fact, counting the last few days you can count on one hand how often it has hit 90 degrees here in NY) and that there has not been any appreciable warming for over a decade — all while, as you point out, CO2 levels continue to increase. Simplified, in the grand scheme of things I’m sure but does that make you scratch you head a bit?

As you noted earlier, none of these facts alone should be interpreted or could reasonably be interpreted as disproving global warming theory but what troubles me is what I see as a failure despite evidence like this, on the part of many advocates, to even question the causal link between man and global warming. Hence, my earlier reference to religion.

Sadly, rather than ask the question, we get a switch from calling the problem "global warming" to "climate change”. Just as the term was switched some 20-30 years ago from “global cooling” to “global warming” – this type of behavior causes me to be skeptical.

Many advocates appear to be pursuing an agenda, an agenda that varies from individual to individual, not science. Whether I am right or wrong – it just appears this way to me.

[engrshock]

The possibility is that it is part of a natural cycle. IF that is the case and continues to occur we can do nothing about it then we get to cram a lot more people onto less land in the future. At least the ocean frontage will be closer to Kansas than it is now. If it is created in part by humans then it is possible that we can do something about it before it becomes a big problem.

Even if it is man made it can be a natural cycle, just one that we have to deal with sooner or later. All of those fossil fuels were above the ground at some point (the earth was also much warmer when the plants were growing and all that carbon was not buried in the earth.)

[SpanglerFan316]

The possibility is that it is part of a natural cycle. IF that is the case and continues to occur we can do nothing about it then we get to cram a lot more people onto less land in the future. At least the ocean frontage will be closer to Kansas than it is now. If it is created in part by humans then it is possible that we can do something about it before it becomes a big problem.

Even if it is man made it can be a natural cycle, just one that we have to deal with sooner or later. All of those fossil fuels were above the ground at some point (the earth was also much warmer when the plants were growing and all that carbon was not buried in the earth.)

"The possibility is that it is part of a natural cycle."
A "natural cycle" is something which occurs (approximately) periodically. At a minimum, one would expect "it" to occur repeatedly. The CO2 levels observed today, to the best of my knowledge (& I'm not involved in climate research), is substantially higher than any levels in the scientific record (e.g. ice cores). For this reason, I would say that your use of the term "cycle" is inaccurate. When something happens for the first time (at least within the last 60 million years) in the geologic record available to us, this represent not "part of a natural cycle" but rather an exceptional occurance.

A huge amount of carbon was locked up in plants back in the day ("All of those fossil fuels were above the ground at some point (the earth was also much warmer when the plants were growing and all that carbon was not buried in the earth.)")
What happened to all this carbon? It became coal, oil and natural gas and was removed from the equation. We've put it back into the equation. The CO2 levels during the time of the dinosaurs might have higher than the levels now; I don't know if data on this can be obtained.

[SpanglerFan316]

Maggie: I'm not involved in climate research and I'm not a fan of "science as political speech." I'm not going to take responsibility for anybody's comments except my own (and even there I'm not sure. ;-) )

What I do know is that most scientists interested in "climate research," "global warming," "dynamical systems," "chaos studies," etc. are not making public statements or TV shows. They are doing their research, sending it to peer reviewed journals, presenting it at meetings and quietly living their lives.

There may be lots of little evidence that somebody's theory has flaws. However, if there was serious and credible evidence that the "big picture" was wrong, any one of the scientists would jump at the chance to publish it. It might mean a Noble prize (& a job at Harvard.) I'd publish it in a second. Every good scientist wants to prove the "experts" wrong; this is one of the appeals of academic scholarship and research. Far from being a "let's all agree" conspiracy, science is like herding cats. If "everybody" agrees with an incorrect conclusion in science, it is because this appeared to be the best explanation for the available evidence.

Ignoring all the public debate, if one of the quietly working scientists could poke holes in the "big picture," they would. The fact that the details may change but the "big picture" doesn't is what makes me believe that over the course of decades, global warming is happening.

[SpanglerFan316]

You see -- I am no scientist, and don’t claim to be, but going back years it is my understanding that a foundational principle of science is falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false (if I get this wrong, it was been a while, please let me know). Many observations may look like they verify a hypothesis, but one significant failure could result in the hypothesis being shown to be false.

Many people in physics say "string theory is not a scientific theory because it is not testable (so far)" but they would agree that it is a "mathematical theory which might describe reality." In this sense, you are right. However I have trouble believing that nothing about climate research can be scientifically tested. In a lab, you can test the "greenhouse effect" of CO2, methane, etc. You can use satellites to look at cloud cover and measure the reflectivity of sunlight. You can measure the concentration of CO2 in the oceans. There are many experiments one can perform. I therefore either do not understand your question or disagree with your claim.

[Maggie]

You see -- I am no scientist, and don’t claim to be, but going back years it is my understanding that a foundational principle of science is falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false (if I get this wrong, it was been a while, please let me know). Many observations may look like they verify a hypothesis, but one significant failure could result in the hypothesis being shown to be false.

Many people in physics say "string theory is not a scientific theory because it is not testable (so far)" but they would agree that it is a "mathematical theory which might describe reality." In this sense, you are right. However I have trouble believing that nothing about climate research can be scientifically tested. In a lab, you can test the "greenhouse effect" of CO2, methane, etc. You can use satellites to look at cloud cover and measure the reflectivity of sunlight. You can measure the concentration of CO2 in the oceans. There are many experiments one can perform. I therefore either do not understand your question or disagree with your claim.

Okay -- you made me look this up (which takes me down memory road and God bless the internet), read the whole summary for context (I am not saying the theory at issue is necessarily false):

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

And keep in mind, I could be off base here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

[SpanglerFan316]

As for the MIT article, (1) it demonstrates the willingness of scientists to publish the results of experiments and observations which might "poke holes" in standard theory and (2) it is preliminary and proves nothing. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

With respect to (2), it is possible that this "simultaneous" increase might just be a coincidence. It might be that the "atmospheric circulation model" which predicts that "it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere" is wrong. It may involve hydroxyl. So far, there is an interesting observation but no good explanation. Hopefully they will find one.

Of course, they might find additional natural sources of methane. If so, this would be a great discovery because we can't evaluate or mediate the effects of greenhouse gasses if we don't know all the sources. Additional sources of methane only make it even more important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

To me, this is a "little observation." The fact that some, perhaps a lot of, methane is not generated by human-related activity is not new.

Notice one more thing. The MIT article never mentions "cycle" or "natural cycle" at all. The closest thing to this in the article is "It is too early to tell whether this increase represents a return to sustained methane growth, or the beginning of a relatively short-lived anomaly, according to Rigby and Prinn."

However, the link provides has the title MIT Team Says "Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle". If you say "MIT Team says" and then you include some text in quotes, this usually means that the text is an exact (or, at least, approximate) quote for the source. The source text is given as
"Source Link: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html"
which is the link to the MIT article.

In the Daily Galaxy article, they write:
Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
The implication is make up out of whole cloth http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...of+whole+cloth; the actual line above says nothing. (If I said to you "It is probable that you may abuse children," I'm not actually accusing you of child abuse; however, you might take offense at my comment.)

Here is another example:
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.
What is this "scientific analysis" they mention? Where is a reference? Does this have any connection with the MIT article or research? Or are they just following their agenda?

Remember what I said about people with a bias or an agenda? This is a perfect example. Many people refuse to look the truth in the face. How about you?

[SpanglerFan316]

Maggie: I am confused by your last post. Are you saying that a scientific theory should not be modified in light of subsequent observations or evidence?